>> okay, good evening and welcome to the december 14, 2022 san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will be the presiding officered and joined by commissioner-also present is john gibner to provide the board with needed legal advice. (inaudible) the board executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments presenting before the board. corey (inaudible) the zoning administrator representing the planning department. matthew green acting chief building inspector and chris bock urban

forestry. the board meeting guidelines the board request turn off or silence phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb proceedings. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. appellates permit holders and respondents are given 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affil iated must include the comments within the 7 to 3 minute period. time may be limited to 2 minutes if the agenda is long or large number of speakers. mr. longly our legal assistant will give a warning 30 seconds before the time is up. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rules are hearing schedule e-mail board staff at boardofappeals @sfgov.org. sfgovtv

is streaming live and have ability the receive public comment for each item. sfgovtv is providing closed captioning. go to sfgovtv tv channel 78. it will be rebroadcast friday 4 p.m. on channel 26. the link to the live stream is located on the home page. public comment can be provided in three ways. one, in person, two, via zoom, please go to the website and click on the zoom link or three, by telephone. call 1-669-900-6833 and webinar id (inaudible) sfgovtv is broadcasting and stream thg number across the bottom of the line. to block your phone number dial star 67 and phone number. listen for the comment item to be called and dial star 9. you will be

brought into it the hearing when can it is your turn. may may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself and wile have 2 or 3 minutes depends on the length of agenda and volume of speakers. the assistent will provide a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. there is a delay between the live proceedings and broadcast therefore it is important people reduce or turn off the tv or computer otherwise there is interfeens with the meeting. if participants need disability accommodation or technical assistance make a request in the chat function or send e-mail to board of appeals@sfgov.org. the chat function can not be used for public comment. we'll take public comment first for those members present in the hearing room. we'll swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking oath pursuant to the rights dern their rights.

if you wish to have it board give weight, raise your hand and say i do. do you swear or affirm is the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. if you are participant and not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute and president swig given the length of the agenda i recommend public comment is limited 2 minutes. >> i concur. >> we have one housekeeping item, the parties for 7a, b and c, have come to an agreement and they would like the board to grant the appeal and issue the permit they require one all work take place between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.

monday-friday. no work on weeblgds or holidays. the two, the permit holder and contractors will use besterts to do the work as quitely as feasible not playing loud music. three, the permit holder and contractors will use fans to remove fooms during work hour that generate fumesism they have come to the agreement and requesting you make that motion. somebody make a motion. >> see commissioner lum burg requested to speak. >> i so move that we grant the appeal based on the conditions i'm not going to reread. >> i just need to check see if there is any-commissioner tras vina before i go to public comment? >> yes, i know there was a e-mail earlier today but can you for the record describe the way in which both parties expressed to us their agreement and their recommendation for this action? >> i spoke to the

appellate attorney by phone, he sent e-mail with the conditions and got conformation from the attorney for the permit holder that he agreed to these conditions. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item, please raise your hand? i don't see any public comment, so on that motion- [roll call] >> motion carries 4-0 and note for the record both parties agreed the right to request rehearing which means we can issue the written decision tomorrow. thank you for that item. those items are concluded. we are moving to item number 1, which is general public comment. this is a opportunity for anyone who would like to speak within the bord jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. anyone here for general public comment, please raise

your hand? okay. i don't see anyone here. we'll move to item 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners, i ask you for any comments and questions, i would like to take the floor and wish you all a very happy holiday. (inaudible) most importantly express thanks for your par tis ticipation on this panel. this is volunteer panel, and we sit up here 3 or 4 times a month and give it our best and i appreciate that you all have given your best for the citizens who we represent, and i look forward to next year. i also want to thank the public for their patience for these proceedings. sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's tough, but we do our best and i appreciate the public participation and presence in these meetings and the

understanding with our verdicts whether they go one way or the other. also like to express thanks to the various city departments who put a lot of work into sorting out the various issues that come in front of us, and get us up to speed with regard to all the laws and compliance issues et cetera et cetera, because sometimes it is very complicated and they help sort it out so i appreciate that. the city attorney, present and past this year who also keep us sorted out. so, thanks very much and everybody have a very happy safe holiday. commissioner lumburg. >> i echo much of what president swig said and especially want to give thanks to all the members of the public here tonight

thin room and on zoom for participating in the public process. i think it's not often stated enough, but your presence here regardless of your position on any given issue is greatly appreciated and contributes to the greater good in san francisco governance. similarly i want to wish my fellow commissioners and city agency representatives, city attorney and all others associated with board of appeals a very happy holiday season as this is our last meeting of the year. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you president swig and my colleague sitting to my left expressed very well my response to seeing so many members of the public. i have been on the commission a better part of the year and this is the time we had more people come to us then any

other hearing i attended and think that is a testament to the people of san francisco that they care about what is going and express faith in the process. whatever it outcome or whatever they have to say, i do not know. i want to express my appreciation for their presence and prez dent swig you one important person to thank and that is president swig. i as a new member of the body greatly appreciate the guidance and leadership you provided. i speak for all of us this is important work for the city and county of san francisco for our residents and greatly appreciative of all your tireless efforts to keep us as a unit moving forward and being responsive to the law and the facts of the cases that come before us so thank you mr. president. >> thank you. sorry that the budget this year did not allow for the christmas

cookies tonight. we'll do a better job next year. commissioner eppler. >> i didn't know there could be christmas cookies. ditto everything my fellow commissioners said. as the newest members of the board i felt welcomed by fellow commissioners, city attorney and executive director and appreciate everyone'sents to efforts to get me up to speed to efficiently and effectively administer our roles on the public so thank you all and happy holidays . >> you raise the issue of the most important person in the room the executive director who really does the heavy lifting. >> not true, but thank you. >> yes, she is a wizard of oz behind the curtain as well as in front of the curtain and thank you julie for everything you do on a daily basis not just a weekly basis. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? please raise your hand.

don't see public comment so we'll move to the next item. which is adoption of the minutes. item 3, minutes of december 7, 2022 meeting. >> commissioners do i have oo motion? >> motion to adopt the minutes. >> thank you. >> any public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes, please raise your hand. don't see any so on the motion to adopt the minutes. [roll call] motion carries 4-0. item 4, 22-080 waterfront action committee versus zoning administrator, 955 sansome street appealing the

issuance on october 28, 2022, to waterfront action committee, of a letter of determination (the zoning administrator has determined that the subject lot is developed to less than 20% of the lot's principally permitted buildable gross floor area as determined by height limits, rear yard requirements, and required setbacks per planning code section 206.3(b)(8) and is eligible for the home-sf program) is this is record 2022-008802 and we will hear from the appellates first. i understand (inaudible) is representing the attorney. welcome, you have 7 minutes. >> thank you commission r and execive director. water frunlt action committee is a california non profit organization members living in the telegraph hill neighborhood. this concerns whether a proposed project at 955 sansome qualify for home sf program, which would allow vastly increased density and height. as you-can we have the projection? as you can see from the projection and materials we submitted, the project would tower over the historic district. this is in the waterfront

historic district recognized district. this is by far the tallest building in the area. for that reason home sf actually has a qualification for this district only that only in this district a project can comply for home sf only if the existing project is developed to less then 20 percent of the buildable gross floor area. that unique requirement to protect the nature of this historic district that is world-famous really. the zoning administrator has calculated that the existing development of a parking garage is 18.4 percent, but we believe that that calculation is mistaken. it under estimate the amount of area and vastly overestimate the amount of buildable gross floor area. the-let me toggle through here. this slide shows the nature of the

calculation. you basically to have to look at the developed area of the existing whatever is built on the site and divide by the maximum amount that could be built on the site. i will turn to tom data on who is one of the members of the waterfront action committee to talk about the numerator, the top number. >> hello everyone. my name is tom (inaudible) neighbor of the proposed 955 sansome development. thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. i like to explain how we calculate the numerator of the ratio richard laid out. this is the developed area of the existing building. we start by taking the square footage of the lot which is 18.906 square feet, multiply be 3. resulting in a developed area of 56.718 square

feet. (inaudible) there is 30.4 percent and 20 percent threshold is crossed. we believe the third floor should be included because it is fully developed. including parking spots, faiving fence, gate light and multiple enclosed structure. we also show excluded the third floor the numerator would be calculated 18.906 square feet times 2 which result in 37.812 square feet and ratio of 20.3 percent. the 20 percent threshold is crossed and project should not be eligible for home sf. you might ask why reach a lower numerator of 34.157 square feet. rely on definition of gross floor areas which exclude

the roof top and (inaudible) excluded from the definition of gross floor area. planning code (inaudible) does not guide to use gross floor area, it developed area of the existing buildings. those feature excluded in the calculations are developed and should be included as should 100 percent of the developed area of the lot. using the zoning area denominator which is inflated, 20 percent threshold is crossed and should not be eligible for home sf. with that, i'll pass it back to richard. thank you. >> next i like to discuss the denomnaurt which is the amount that could be built on the site. here the zoning administrator went off the rails. the zoninged a administrator assumed a 11 story building can be build in 84 feet. the only way to do that is assuming a floor to floor height of 8 foot

1 inches. that leaves no room for ceiling, flooring, plumbing, pipes, lect 8:hva and assumes a 5 inch slab between floors which as engineer dr. carpus testified in writing you can't build a 5 inch slab, it will crumble. the ordinance requires a calculation of the buildable floor area. dr. carp believes the maximum buildable area is 8 or maybe 9 stories if you use the 7 foot 6 inch ceiling height but at 9 stories you are far above the 20 percent threshold. the statute requires buildable area. (inaudible) submit #d letter saying 8 foot 1 inch floor heighterize possible. that letter isn't signed by anyone, not a license architect, engineer but not anyone, so please look at the

rubin and (inaudible) letter. the city letter brief says "the issue of feasibility either technically or financially was not included in this determination". they are admitting this is not feasible. you can't build 8 foot 1 inch from floor to floor because the need to put in plumbing, fire proofing, flooring, ceiling lights. we have one minute left. i would like to turn the floor over in a minute to dr. larry karp a licensed architect and engineer and we'll have 3 minutes of rebuttal also or questions for dr. karp. >> i wrote a paper on

-with some facts that the zoning administrator who is not a design professional came out with the theory that you could >> (inaudible) >> you could have 7 inches between a floor and a ceiling below, and that's all you needed for a structure. that is not true, you have to have framing and it would be at least 14 inches and you would need plumbing and all the other amenities, so- >> thank you, that's time. >> you will have time in rebuttal, sir. thank you. thank you. we have a question from commissioner

trasvina. >> i thank you for the presentation. very thorough and helpful. one thing i'm struggling with is the concept of buildable versus feasible and do you have any either statutory or case law to amplify your version of buildable? >> well, this is a new statute or new ordinance and i believe it has not been interpret ed before. the term buildable means something that can be built is buildable and 8 foot floor to floor isn't buildable, it would collapse, so we believe that lowest buildable floor area according to dr. karp would be 9 feet if you consider the supports necessary for post tension concrete flooring. the city claims that feasibility is not relevant,

but if it isn't technologically feasible it cant be built and it isn't buildable and that is the term used in the statute. >> i'll have questions for the city about the feasibility definition but in terms of the way you have described the report, i think the unsigned one, it doesn't say it isn't feasible, it just doesn't speak to feasibility. if we press on it we may hear more about why it is feasible but thus far the report doesn't address it. >> (inaudible) letter claims they could build a 8 foot 1 inch floor to floor by having no flooring, ceiling material, no plumbing or electrical then of course your toilet could have it to be mounted on the wall and cant be

built. no one signed the letter. no design professional so don't believe a qualified structural engineer would ever sign that letter because they would lose their license. >> the other question i had is believe in the paper regarding the rounding up rule. was that in your presentation? the argument that 19.97 should be 20 and is that your- >> that was in our original letter. thank you for reading that. that was when the city was calculating 19.97 and now calculating 18.4 so i think that- >> we are on to other numbers and cal culations? >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the attorney for the property own rer >> thank you commissioners. john kaplan (inaudible) behalf

of the project sponsor air lawn properties. 955 sansome is proposed 65 unit project with 25 percent aaffordable houdsing. one othe highest rates of affordable houdsing in the city and the reason it is subject is to that the ability to use the home sf program. (inaudible) he's the best to defend it and comes from not related to either party y. i wanted to focus on a couple things. the eligibility criteria deals with inlegally allowed density at the site in particular the existing development is less then 20 percent of legally buildable area. this is not the desirable buildable area, this is not the ideal buildable area, this is not a building that anyone would necessarily want to build, it is a legal criterion that uses

language that the zoning administrator can relatively easily pull from both the planning code and building code to determine what is legally permitted at the site. so, provided a basis for being able to build the project as illustrated. i will mention airlon is its own general contractor as well, so they are not just simply a developer, they are actually involved with the actual construction and buildings and most importantly the one legal provision we are dealing is the building code says you have to have a ceiling height of 7 foot 6 inches and gone beyond not in a ideal scenario but buildable scenario you can still build the floor-thickness is shown and you can provide utilities and other aspects of the building, not within your typical drop ceiling , because a drop

ceiling? required. the standard here is legally buildable gross floor area. and i think the appellate brief and the attached letter kind of get right at this issue. they are not taublging talking about legally allowable. they use words as 7 foot 6 ceilings are rarely used suggesting sometimes they are used because they are legal. we hear the words, preferred. we hear the words design professionals consider 7 foot 6 height to be oppressive. we are not arguing that, that is probably true, we are talking what is the legally buildable floor area on the site. going beyond what the za and staff in general can rely upon turns this into debate between engineer s, subjectivity, lack of ability to apply the standard in a way that is rational and what the plain text of the code says so it had moment we get into what

is desirable and should and shouldn't be built we are getting beyond a practical provision and criterion to use in the context. the other quick point i want to make, there was reference to the fact they reference gross floor area. gross floor area defined in the planning code as specific rules. there is no question about whether or not the roof, unenclosed roof is gross floor area and the fact separating what is the gross floor area allowed separate from what is the gross floor area on the site and that they don't reference gross floor area, i dont think makes a lot of sense we use a different standard how to calculate what is on the site and apply to a differently measured denominator to come up with the calculation. again, as zoning code and state law

continue to develop, we end up in these situation where we are coming up with much more precise standards. standsards in which need to have relyable objective application and not inserting debate over whether something or should not happen and what is ideal or not. with that, i'll leave it to you. i'm here if you have any questions and again, we have reviewed the zoning administrator brief and are in support of his positions. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner lumburg. >> thank you. having a hard time formulating this question. i definitely hear your point as to the strict definitions of what is allowable. i guess my question is, is the project present #d that you are saying

it falls within these categories? it is actually built to the specifications or just using this as an excuse to say, oh, well this falls within the strict legal definitions and when the plans are brought up it is going to be totally different and not comply with other zoning requirements? (inaudible) >> thank you commissioner. the provision we are talking about that is at issue here, it is a theoretical calculation. is the site built more equal or more then 25 percent of what is the legally buildable area and so this is merely a theoretical exercise to confirm whether or not it meets that provision of the home sf eligibility. no question the project we are proposing does not propose 7 foot 6 floor to

ceiling. the eligibility criteria doesn't require that. what is allow #d on the site. what is the max you can put on the site and we propose a different project because that is what is proposed. there is linkage required between the two. >> so, what is being proposed then? we are only seeing what could theoretically be proposed but what i want to know is what is actually being proposed? >> i appreciate that question and that goes to the heart of the context where we are now. we are in the middle of entitlement process. doing environmental review, hpc and planning commission. the letter was filed by a group established opposition and file #d zoning administrator letter of determineitation to put in front of the commission on the technical issue as do

we meet the criterion of the home sf program. i can describe the project but it isn't relevant to this conversation. that is why it hasn't been brought in because we are not talking what the project is, we are talking is this site eligible for a home sf program entitlement. i believe mr. (inaudible) not relevant to the question of the eligibility, but that did appear to be accurate to the degree you are looking for something as to what is the actual project. >> okay. thank you. >> yes are, thank you. >> thank you we'll now hear from the planning department. >> good afternoon good evening i mean president swig, commissioners, corey

teeg, zoning administrator. the subject lot before you tonight is 955 sansome street in c2 zoning district waterfront. and 84e height bulk district. the proposed project which filed the first application in january of 2021 would build a 10 story residential building containing 65 dwelling units of which 25 percent would be affordable. the project also includes amount of ground floor retail and accessory parking up to approximately to 39 total spaces. the appeal isn't a appeal of the project itself as it is still undergoing review by planning department and hpc and yet to be heard by planning commission. the issue determination was not a judgment on quality or appropriateness on the projeblth as proposed. the issue determination is only relate #d to a single eligibility

requirement from the planning code and more specifically it comes down to the calculation methodology for a soft site analysis. the project is able to achieve the proposed height density and massing through the city home sf program, which provides development bonuses to projects that provide certain levels of affordable housing on site in a manner similar to the state density bonus program. the home sf program generally is not available in the northeast part of had city had you ever as the legislation movaled forward in 2017 the board of supervisors allowed only soft sites in the area to use the program. the language defined as vacant lot or lot greater then 12.500 square feet or existing buildings are developed to less 20 percent of the lots permitted buildable gross floor area determined by height limits rear yard requirements and required setbacks so in that case the laj pwj called out the specific provisions to use to determine how to constrain the

permitted buildable envelope. that language does not include floor height, does not include feasibility or desirability. it simply states that you determine the permitted build grooss floor area. this provision added late in the legislative process and did not receive staff analysis or significant conversation when added to ordinance. other then the clear initant to allow home sf projects on soft sites in this area there is very little (inaudible) as outlined in my brief the bord adopted a simple definition of soft site that included no technical guidance or direction to consider the potential desirability or feasibility of a potential development on a lot. instead the code language simply requires analysis of the maximum gross floor area developed on lot when constrained by height limits rear yard requirements and required setback so as

pointed out, it is not necessarily my determination that the proposed project is (inaudible) feasibility was not a significant factor in the determination. considering this context and use the plain text of it code and standard practice to make determination inquluding using the planning code definition of gross floor area. the provision is in the planning code, it uses the term gross floor area. i don't know why would use any other definition of gross floor area then what is already defined in the code and defined when the provision was added to the code. again, the goal was to develop the simplest calculation methodology without including more subjective criteria such as desirability and feasibility that would be very challenging to determine on case by case basis. to the point of feasibility you can

get professionals to disagree on a lot of things. what is feasible and what can be permitted to be built in the city is under the pursue of the department of building inspection and not the planning department. the analysis provided by the project sponsor met all the technical eligibility requirements-and bulk lilt (inaudible) 65 feet and important to note that non residential development on this lot would not be subject to required rear yard or any other setbacks. the appellate highlights the fact the department methodology and calculation for the soft site determination evolved over time which is true however it is common for the department to work through various methodology or interpretation of new code provisions never implemented before such as this one. each iteration continue to show the existing building represented lez then 20 percent of the gross floor area of the lot. however, the

appellate continued to question the methodology and the final call was left to the zoning administrator to make final determination. as detailed in the determination the soft site analysis for the lot found the lot area is well over 12.500 square feet and the parking garage represents 18.3 percent of the zone capacity for development of the lot therefore the lot meets the specific softsary eligibility requirement for the northeast portion of the city for home sf and beyond meeting the eligibility requirement it is clear the proposal meets spirit and intent of the requirement as non discrypt two story parking garage that does not include long standing businesses and be considered a soft site in any other formal soft site analysis. there was nothing nefarious about the process determining if the project is eligible for home sf under this provision. the project created a need to interpret a new provision of

the code which fell to the zoning administrator to decide. the issue determination is not a statement on the project design or appropriateness, it is a technical determination that follows the plan text of the code and legislateival intent and represent a simp 8 rational and logical interpretation of the planning code. as such it is department position that the zoning administrator did not air or abuse the discretion when making the determination and respectfully request the board deny the appeal. i didn't touch on all details outlined in the letter or brief because there are other technical issues but i'm available for questions you may have related to those topics or other questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. questions from two commissioners. president swig. >> so, the beginning of the presentation you made reference to the context of this activity. is this

like the very first steps in a long process to potentially make this project move forward and could you briefly put us into context as to what step if this isn't the first one, what step we are in? where it goes second, third--12 and what point really the issue of feasibility, the issue of legality, thishue of what this thing will look like really comes to fruition. >> sure. i think this is where it is important to go back to the point the projethsponsor made which is, all the numbers and technical things we are talking about for this determination basically have nothing to do with the actual project proposed. this is a theoretical analysis for the site to determine just if that site is even eligible

to use this program and once it is determined eligible they design a project based on the market and whatever their incentives. this is purely a eligibility requirement analysis. that is done pretty early in the process. the projethsponsor provided materials to show they were eligible when first filing for the project and staff determined that analysis to be correct and for the projeblth project to be eligible and moved forward since that time. as mentioned the project now is still deep in the process. is deep in review both in terms of code compliance and also ceqa. it is also reviewed once by the architectural review committee of hpc, so they are still going through that process and it is important to understand because the decision in front of you tonight, if it isn't eligible then it isn't elg

igible for the program and what they propose isn't relevant and if it is eligible that determination doesn't effect that project. the actual project is going through the development review process and getting comments from the relevant bodies. >> and so you didn't answer my question exactly. i want a little more detail. tell us where we are-when does it go to planning? what steps are next and how many times does this project have a shot at getting shot down if it is not--the appellate claims well, it st. not feasible,b it isn't realistic, i build a lot of hotels i know what they are talking about, but this seems to be more abstract at this point number one, and number two, how many hands are going to touch this? how many commissioners are going to see

this? how many hold accountable people are going to review this project before it comes back to us on appeal? sneaky suspicion (inaudible) >> and to be clear the feasibility argument the appellates are making about the feasibility of the theoretical project in the eligibility analysis, not the feasibility of the actual project. so that is it the only thing we are focusing on here is the eligibility requirement. in terms of steps, right now the environmental review needs to be completed which is not done yet because this is a historic district it will require approval from the hpc. that is independently appealable and then ultimately the final step would have to go to the planning commission for approval of the home sf project and that is also appealable, so there is still all that process left to go. in terms of the exact timeline the

project sponsor would have a better idea how far along they are in that timeline other then the fact that they have already been to one committee hearing at the hpc. >> i get a sense what this is all about for you, not about the issue, but for you is that you are asked to prove 2 plus 2 in fact does equal 4, because the general statutes in place, the general information as we know it at this time, you said it is new legislation so you are kind of putting your finging in the wind a little bit but that is all you got. basically you are asked to approve and support the fact 2 plus 2 equals 4 as relates to this applicability issue, is that kind of what we are talking about here? >> accept the fact maybe the-what was asked is

what is your methodology for doing that math and is that a valid methodology. that is what we are determining here. there is some numbers that are clear numbers, it is about the methodology and again that is the only question here today is nothing to do with the actual project being proposed, it is just does this lot meet this specific eligibility of which there are many other eligibility requirements to the home sf program, this is one of them and that is the narrow focus of the letter and appeal. >> so, said another way, we agree that 2 plus-all agree 2 plus 2 equals 4. you took this being asked does 2 plus 2 equal 4 and you found it does and now you are being asked for your audit trail is basically being questioned and as to the fact that did you use the proper 2 and proper 2 to get it

to equal 4, is that the abstract? >> it's in the right ball park, yes. >> okay, thanks. i will give it to commissioner limburg. >> thank you mr. teage for your thoroughness. i have two separate questions. the first is, if you can please speak a bit as to-the appellate has definitely characterized this encertain ways but i want to hear your analysis on the planning staff amended calculations to determine the eligibility for the home sf project and if you can just speak as to what happened initially and what happened subsequentially to change those cal culation? >> one caveat i dont have all the details and nuance of every calculation that happened at the staff level. my understanding is that the initial analysis provided by

the applicant was determined to meet the requirements. i don't know our initial staff review did a separate analysis. i think it was review of the applicant analysis and determination it was accurate. i think once there was some questioning of the applicant's methodology, there was some additional staff review and attempts at the staff level to do our own analysis. i know that one just as a example one earlier analysis was factoring in the floor area ratio requirements for the site as part of the analysis and to that point it still came under 20percent. it was closer to 20 percent but came in under 20 percent, but ultimately when the appellate which st. the right continue to dispute the methodology it landed on my desk to make a final call and once we sat down and dug into it, we determined that

the language is very clear on what should be included in the analysis and that is what we include and determine the floor area ratio control didn't need to be part of the methodology and that did change it to some degree. one other thing is we did have the applicant update the plan a little bit because they were not showing the roof top penthouse and mechanical enclosure so those were updated but they didn't change the numbers in the calculation. >> thank you. second completely unrelated question, i heard the term home sf before, but not really familiar with the in and out of the program so i want to ask what the practical considerations are if this proposed project is or is not subject to home sf rules and what difference that would make in the real world? >> sure. home sf was adopted this version of home sf adopted

in 2017 and in response to the state density bonus program. it is a similar concept, which is there's a trade-off in terms of development bonuses for providing certain level of on site affordability so you get housing on site and don't pay in a fee and certain things you get automatically if you meet all the eligibility requirements because it doesn't apply everywhere and there are numerous eligibility rirementds beyond this. there are multiple tier s, the more affordable housing you provide, the more development bonuses you receive which is similar to the state density bonus. and so, in this case for example some things you get are reduction in the rear yard requirement, reduction in the open space requirement, and additional height. and so that's the just of it. it basically a program

designed to accommodate the development of more affordable housing through market rate development. >> okay. and so, if home sf-if your letter of determination found the other way home sf did not apply to this project, what would the hard numbers be? how much shorter would the building have to be? how much more rear yard setback would they center have to have opposed to currently? >> sure. i'm not as familiar with the details of the plan as the project proposed i think the project sponsor can speak to that but generally it is 1 to 2 story shorter because it is a 10 story building but 84 height district that is about 16 foot difference so believe what is proposed is 1 to 2 stories shorter in height and are again like for the rear yard i believe it is 10 percent reduction so right now the

proposal is a courtyard as the rear yard that has to be essentially 10 percent bigger. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. commissioner eppler. >> thank you. unfortunately the law is usually bad at math and that is what we are doing right now. so, looking to the numerator, we use gross area which is defined term under the code. are there other definitions under the code for calculating floor areas? >> the other one that is defined is occupied floor area, which tends to be even less because it nets out like storage and parking and certain things that don't get counted in gross which makes sense. gross implies gross. the biggest calculation we have. it goes from the exterior of the wall in and there are not very many exception. there are places in the code where it says there is

provision that says use gross floor area but with these modification for certain sections. in terms of other defined floor area it is pretty much gross and occupied are the 2 primary definitions we have. >> the code provision in question doesn't use occupied floor area? >> no, it uses gross. >> there is nothing known as developed floor area in the code? >> no. gross floor area is what we use for all our formal area calculations in the code whether floor area ratio, whether calculating how many square feet subject to impact fees. it is the standard for what we use. >> going to the denominator, the code could have said permitted gross floor area as the calculation but it says permitted buildable gross floor area. what-in your analysis does the modfiret

buildable do to gross floor area? >> we have this in other parts of the code it talks about the buildable floor area and all other places in the code what that is in reference and how interpreted and implemented buildable is sunonms. with permitted. the planning code isn't construction code. we don't do feasibility analysis based on construction methods in the planning department. that isn't our purview, so when the term like a buildable envelope is used in the planning code is synanomus with what is permitted. >> the buildable gross floor area is (inaudible) >> sure. right. and i think that isn't the best

wording. this was added late in the process at the board of supervisors so don't think it had as many eyes as it typically would. another thing that is helpful that is modified at the end when it says as determined by height limits rear yard requirements and required setbacks. it doesn't say as determined by-any of the other things that could have been used in the analysis if that was the intent. >> including the building code? >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. i have a couple questions. on this you describe the current building as 2 story garage and do you know how hany levels of parking there? >> there is 3 levels of parking but you can park on the roof level. >> and as i read the papers, there various things going on

the roof. >> there is one stair house and small mechanical enclosure. >> are you saying that the legal definition of gross floor area would not include that roof level parking even though there are things on it? >> correct. we don't count unenclosed area gross as measured from the extoorier of enclosed walls and structures and it does not include exterior areas. there are some situations where you have partially enclosed structures, where if they enclose enough we will count it, but if it is just open roof or in the situation like this a parking level that is accessible at the roof level that is absolutely not considered part of gross floor area. >> and on the question of the buildable question, it seems

that the eligibility for home sf depends upon the ceiling height or floor to ceiling height that you have described as 7 foot 6, correct? >> i think the lowest ceiling height is 8 foot 1 in their analysis. >> that is based upon 7 foot 6 plus- >> 7 foot 6 is minimum in the building code. >> right. so, and you've also said we are kind of in the theoretical exercise right now. do you have expectation when this is all done that there will be that height of the walls and that low ceilings? >> no, i don't. i mean, i think the project sponsor mentioned, the purpose of this

eligibility is soft site analysis based on what is permitted under the planning code, period and not like what is feasible in the market, what is desirable in the market, so there is not-i don't think and the project sponsor said that those are not desirable for the market, but whether they were desirable for the market or not was not a consideration. >> thank you. >> follow-up to the last point. really doesn't matter what we see--whatever is drawn on a piece of paper that we reviewed is really that is just real fiction at this point? there is not a building with 8 foot 1 floors. there is not-the building any representation of the building at this point is not anywhere near fact, as mentioned by project

sponsor counsel and i don't know if was mentioned by the appellate. that to me is really is pitfall. when is a picture not a real picture so the picture we look at today with a column that looks like a building that is represented with 8 foot 1 inch ceiling heights is complete fiction for points of our conversation today because that is where i see our pitfall here. we are looking at abstract and interpreting as fact. >> i think you have to be careful not to be trying to interpret the analysis in the same manner you would be interpreting what a actual proposed project is, because they are not trying to propose a real project in this exercise. that's not the point of the exercise so not the attempt they are making, so that frame of mind

isn't where we are when looking at this theoretical exercise because it really is just a numbers game to determine what's the development potential of the site. >> we are looking at a math problem and whether you did it right or not? basically. >> it is-at the base it is a math equation, yes. >> just one technical question because we haven't-since commissioner trasvina in my recollection of his tenure nor have the other two commissioners had this question raised i don't think. if we were looking at a building and somebody said they are above the space utilization allowance and they point to the

elevator or mechanical or hvac at the top of the building, does that count or not? >> towards gross floor area? >> yeah, towards whether-because i remember this thing we had and i need clarification. this is part of my refresher course and maybe their learning curve, but i remember be had a building near fisherman -it was a issue of height limit. there was potentially a 4 foot mechanical box on top which the appellate was saying it isn't 32 feet, it is 36 feet. the numbers are wrong by the way, and so it's not eligible to be built. does mechanical count? does a elevator-does that stuff that you are saying on the roof don't worry-does that

count or not? >> right. that question the way you frame it is related to what permitted to go above the height limit because we have height limits for all the properties in the city so for example, this property is zoned for 84 feet in height. if you had a building designed where the roof was 84 you are going to have things about the roof level. you have maybe penthouse, elevator penthouse, parapets, maybe mechanical enclosure so the planning code calls our very specific features per certain parameters that are exempt from the height limit and we would not use that in the height calculation. they are exempt from the height limit and height calculations and most projects come in built to the height limit with things like penthouses and mechanical enclosure above that and that doesn't get counted against them. that isn't how we

measure the height. we just measure the height to roof level. >> in that context, are those things part of gross useable square feet in your calculation which i think is the discussion here? >> right, i would say the vast majority of those are not included in gross floor area. >> that was my question i wanted the commission to hear that. thank you very much. >> thank you. we are moving to public comment. is there anyone in the room who would like to provide public comment? please raise your hand. come up and if you can line up against the wall or someone come up to the speaker, please. after we take public comment here we will go to zoom. if you are on zoom and want to provide public comment raise your hand. if you called in you may need to press star 9. thank you. if you could move over there because it is a fire safety hazard by the door. thank you. >> hello. my name is allen (inaudible) the president of

the telegraph hill dwellers a local neighborhood group of 500 members representing north beach and telegraph hill here representing the planning zoning committee and thd membership. we sent letter of support of the appeal on december 4 and as mentioned we agree with the appellates that this 8 foot floor to floor measurement is just not realistic. we don't build buildings that way and there are several projects in the area, for example 425 broadway, 1196 columbus and they all have 10 foot floor to floor. another thing we want to point out is the existing building we believe is 3 stories. the top-it is parking garage and the top floor is used by (inaudible) which is self-driving automobile company and the whole parking lot is

used. it has been recently refurbished and the assessor report that i have a little copy of here, lists as 3 stories is. they are paying taxes on 3 stories, so seems to me it is 3 stories. so, basically because of this we discussed before the numerator is too low, the denominator is too high and so we agree so thank you. >> you have 30 seconds if you want to finish. >> you have 30 seconds left. >> i said enough. >> if you can fill out a speaker card for our record. a speaker card. >> ma'am, you can come forward. sir, a speaker card so we spell your name correctly when we do the minutes. ma'am , you can come forward and you have 2 minutes. >> hi, my name is constance young and i am a

neighbor of the proposed project. i'm just representing myself so actually not part of telegraph hill dwellers or waterfront action committee, but i very much appreciate the work they are doing, just a passionate neighbor who is confused by the nature othf project and strikes me the developers are being disingenuous and maybe using confusion as a strategy here. i don't proport to have answers but a couple of the threads i like to untangled around my confusion first of on technicalities in august the planning department issued a written opinion the denominator of the buildable gross whatever was 165 thousand square foot using-and later issued an opinion on their current numerator, which clearly exceeded 20 percent threshold and reissued their denominator opinion when they came up with

the numerator. that was a surprise for me. the other thing that seems confusing to me is, making a theoretical determination on this like 11 foot office building when what is proposed as being built is 114 foot residential, all residential building and again, 84 foot zone in a historic district and i think we have seen proposals where the building is even larger and more egregious and out of line with the historic nature of the district. again, i appreciate everyone being here before the holidays and for all the committees that have done a lot of work. it isn't our full time jobs obviously and try toog pin down a moving target but being really passionate about just the presentation- >> thank you. >> thank you, next

speaker, please. ma'am if you can fill out a speaker card. thanks. >> hello commissioners. thank you again for being here and happy holidays. my name is nick ferrous, i grew up on telegraph hill and continue to live there and this project deeply worries me because the calculations presented by the city are inaccurate and highly misleading whether intended or not. what is laid out by the waterfront action committee and the telegraph hill dwellers show the numbers used by the planning department are fudged to push the project through. on top of that, there is the top floor of the garage which for decades is active use and seen as separate floor for the county assessor office as already mentioned. the planning department is now leaving this fact out in the calculation to further fudge the numbers to seemingly suit the developers wishes. it isn't fair, doesn't add up, not right. all here on both sides of the issue want more

housing built in san francisco however changing 2 historic neighborhoods uses ord nnsss that don'ts apply to justify that outcome is unacceptable. i urge this board of appeals to overturn the ruling of planning department of the acceptance of the home sf project for 955 sansome street. thank you. >> thank you. anyone elseprint present in the hearing room who wants to provide public comment? we'll move to zoom. theresa (inaudible) please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. theresa flandrij. i see your hand raised but you are muted. >> okay. there we go. thank you. >> thank you, i think you have another device on. okay, please go ahead.

>> yes. >> do you have a computer and phone open because there is feedback? can you turn one of them off please? >> yes. will do. >> ready to go? >> no, it is not-(inaudible) [echo] >> there is a echo, so do you have your phone and your computer open? the tv? can you turn your tv down? >> i have the computer actually off. >> maybe you could put it on mute. i didn't mean for you to mute yourself, just mute one of your devices, please. because we can't hear you now. >> now can you hear me? >> yes, but there is still the

echo, sowhat do you have open right now? are you on your laptop? >> yes. >> and what else do you have? >> and my phone. >> your phone, why don't you hang up your phone and just stick with your lap top? >> okay. >> thank you. do you want to try again? you have two minutes. >> i am calling as a leader here in north beach of the north beach town committee and i am asking you to please listen to the response in-terms of this not being an appropriate nor legal site for this project. i do know that we had over 6,000 people apply for family housing just across the street from this site, it being affordable housing, so

6,000 people applying when there were only 120units available, so the need for housing that is actually going to fit this community needs, especially with the school just around the corner it is just inappropriate project as well as has already been stated the calculations are incorrect and this should be denied as home sf project. thank you so much. >> okay, thank you. is there any further public comment? please raise your hand. if you are in zoom you need to raise your hand. okay. i think that concludes public comment so we'll move on to rebuttal. and mr. drury you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. i like to emphasize the main problem with inzoning administrator analysis is it ignores the plain language of the ordinance. as the lawyers note you start with plain language which shays the numerator is the developed area. it doesn't say

gross floor area. the third floor is developed and in use 50 years paying taxes on it it is developed. without that the whole argument goes away. as far as the denominator goes, the ordinance says it says buildable floor area. 8 foot 1 inch floor plates are not buildable. there isn't one bit of evidence in the record where any expert says you can build 8 foot 1 inch floor even with 7 foot 6 inch ceilings which is possibly allowed by the code. you need at least 16 inches for the plumbing, the flooring, the beams, electrical, hvac which gets to 9 feet and i like to turn to dr. karp because he is expert. i are want to emphasize the city has to have substantial evidence to support the determination. there is no license professional who has said in the record here that 8 foot 1 inch floor

plates are possible to build. the statute has to be buildable 8 foot 1 inch is not buildable, it will fall down. dr. karp. >> as i started to say, the height that they claim the developer claims that he can build of 8 foot 1 inch from floor to floor leaves 7 inches for structural framing and all utilities. the framing and the flooring is part of what a permit would have to be obtained from the building department to construct this building. they don't allow theory and letters

from developers saying this is all we have to doompt do. you have to have calculations and you have to have license professionals who will sign drawings that show that the (inaudible) is viable. and without that, you can't build anything somebody coming here and saying, oh you can use post tension slabs, they don't understand what a post tension slab is and it wont fit in 7 inches. it won't work. if they thought it could work they should produce a design. >> thank you. that is time. >> you can finish the sentence. we have a question.

>> this is for counsel. i see the part in the planning code that discuss buildable area as part of the denominator. can you point to the section that speaks to what you were saying where the numerator does not involve gross floor area? >> it is the same sentence of 206.4b as in boy, the number 9 where it says that the-the lots principally-where existing buildings are developed to less then 20 percent of the lots principally permitted gross floor area. so, where it is developed. it doesn't say where the gross floor area is less then 20 percent, it says where the building is developed. they could have used gross floor area but they didn't and a controlling language of statutory

interpretation is you use the plain language of the statute. >> 206.4b9. i don't see subsection b9. >> i believe that it is it the provision. >> sure. >> this is from my brief. i don't have the ordinance with me, but i believe i got it quoted here. how do i turn this on? >> overhead, please. >> this is the verbatim ordinance language where it says if located in this area basically on lots greater then 12.500 square feet. home sf only apply said if the

existing buildings are developed to less then 20 percent of the lots principally permitted buildable gross floor area, so it has to be buildable. you build 8 foot 1 inch. there isn't a expert who said you can build 8 foot 1 inch floor to floor because it will fall down as dr. karp said, you can't have a 5 inch concrete slab unless you have high beams supporting it and that doesn't leave room for the plumbing, electrical, hvac and firing proofing. the enzoing administrator ignored the plain language of the ordinance. if you use 7 foot 6 inch ceiling height you need room for the structural integrity to make it "buildable".

according to dr. karp which is only substantial evidence that requires at least 16 inches of concrete, duct work, fire proofing, flooring, ceiling. >> now that i see the code section what i see it refers to the existing buildings. the calculations are to existing buildings not the proposed replacement building, which is what we are talking about here. but the existing building is parking garage, not the proposed project. and so all the things regarding the 7 foot 6 ceiling, i assume that the current parking garage has ceilings higher then that. i don't know how much it matters, because it only says where existing buildings are developed to less then 20 percent of the lots principally permitted buildable gross floor area. >> correct. it is a

mouth full. the numerator has to do with the existing build, what is there, what is developed on the site. not the gross floor area but what is developed on the site. the denominator is what could potentially be built but it has to be buildable. i dont know if anyone saw being john malacovich (inaudible) walking around, that isn't buildable. you couldn't get a permit to build that foor foot ceiling height. you couldn't do it. this is not buildable. this is a being john malacovich building proposed here. >> thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> i want to follow-up on the very point. at this point we are talking two different aspects of the case. one is the third level of the parking area whether that

counts or not, and there seems to be very difference view and the second is issue in the future project 7 foot 6 but the first path where you describe pointing to 206.4b9, you say that you focus ton the word developed and in your view it is developed because it is something other then a bare roof. however, it continues to say that developed to less then 20 percent of the buildable gross floor area i seems that is the gross floor area is the part of the definition where the department says that the roof doesn't count. i'm trying to reconcile two very well presented definitions of the same language and is that where the dispute is not so much

over whether the roof has anything on it, or whether it may be on it, but it doesn't count. >> i think the statute uses two different terms. on the numerator it says what is developed on the site. on it denomnaurt it says what is the buildable gross floor area. we have to assume the legislators did that intentionally. i do a lot of work under the clean air act. you look at the potential to emit versus actual emission. here is what is on the site and what could potentially be on the site and it sth same analysis. very different things. some reason the board of supervisors use different terms from numerator and denominator, not for us to ask why, it st. to read and interpret and apply it. we have to assume they use the words differently intentionally and the numerator says

what is developed on the site, denominator says what is the maximum buildable gross floor area but the building administrator used them backwords. using gross floor area for the numerator and using potential developable for the denominator so it is-we believe entirely backwards and upside down what the plain language of the ordinance is. >> thank you. >> okay. commissioner eppler. >> going to the denominator, i'm still struggling with there word buildable and figure how it modifies things and as i struggle with that i do read further that we are looking at what is permitted buildable gross floor area as determined by height limits rear yard requirements and required setbacks. why doesn't the as determined by limit

the definition of or how buildable modifies the gross floor area. why isn't that the exclusive list of what is considered when you consider what is buildable? >> i think those definitely do modify what is buildable so if there were setbacks it would reduce it. here they have chosen something that doesn't require setbacks but it doesn't eliminate the requirement it must be buildable. >> but, doesn't that modify what is under consideration in terms of buildable? it doesn't say-it is a exclusive list. what other considerations should go into buildable? >> the ordinance doesn't say buildable means setbacks et cetera. it qualifies the gross floor area in the case that there are necessary setbacks or rear yard or height limits which there are here, but it doesn't qualify the word buildable. i don't

think that's a plain language reading of that sentence. >> thank you. >> thank you . no further questions. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the attorney for the project sponsor, mr. kaplan, you have 3 minutes. >> thank you commissioners. on this point we are talking about right now i think what the argument being made by the appellates is that we should measure the existing building by standard that is used no where else in the code defined no where else and they on the spot created a new measurement which is develop floor area which is snng we are developing on the fly. the definition of on the fly. opposed to every other reference to building floor area in this code is gross floor area and occupied floor area and occupied floor

area is a technical term when you calculate bike parking and other provisions of it code. gross floor area is what we use soit is odd they create a brand new type of measurement for the building. it is also odd they say let's use the numerator as the developed floor area which includes open roof but for the denominator the theoretical floor area don't include the roof even if the there is parking or roof deck on it roof. it just doesn't make reasonable or rational sense. moving from that and getting back to the original point, i appreciate your comments. in my first discussion of the case, i said one sentence about the actual project and i hesitateed to say that because the actual project is not here. the arkual project doesn't

have 7 foot 6 floor. i expand on the math equation. maybe it isn't 2 plus 2, maybe it is x plus y equals 4. he has done a good job of providing a basis for that. also mention the project which folks are concerned about going to the hpc, going to planning commission and within 15 days appealed to the board of appeals and be here and you all can see the project when it is relevant and at issue. so i want to emphasize that point. the planning commission approval not just the permit but planning commission approval will be coming you expect to come to the board. thank you commissioners. >> thank you. >> you point about the project doesn't exist. it is theoretical, it will change, coming back to us. the letter of determination refers to the

project, so if we dont know what the project is or everybody has a different view and seems like everybody is calling it fiction, then how would-how do we read the letter of determination that the project meets home sf when we don't know what the project is >> because this has nothing to do with what the actual proposal is. it has to do with what the site is. another factor in here, lots equal or greater then 12.500 square feet. has nothing to do with what the project is. this is only allowed on lots of larger then 12.500 square feet. that is easy check box because we have the lot area. and the second part of the

sentence is the same thing, what is existing today divided by what is theoretically allowed by the building code orthe planning code determined by height limit rear yard and required setback completely divorce what the actual project is. once we check the box on this item, then we get to come in and propose the project. the 7 foot 6 floors nothing to do with the actual project. it is a more complicated factor then the site has to be at least 12.500 square feet. thank you. >> okay. thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. >> good evening again.

corey teeg, zoning administrator. few quick things. nothing was fudged for any purposes. i have a good record annoying both sidesf othe spectrum with my determination and sure people can testify to that effect. i do want to be clear that we actually have a definition of story in the planning code as well. it clearly has to be enclosed story in a building of certain height so even from that perspective we would never consider the roof top level being used as for parking as another story in the building. i can show you that definition if you like. and, because there is no discussion-if you go back and watch the hearings where the bord of supervisorss talked about this, there no detail or indication there was a special way expected this to be measured or special criteria. there is none. it was basically just a 20 percent

soft site analysis for the zoned development capacity of the site. that is it. we are not given the guidance we use standard and typical practices and language that is already in the code. to the specific code language, i want to put this up on the overhead. to the point already made the term--the buildings are developed, that is talking about the state of the lot. again, one eligibility requirement here is that it could be vacant lot and have no other requirements. this is saying that the site is developed to les then 20 percent of the gross floor area, developed is the state of the lot. gross floor area is unit of measurement to see how developed it. i dopet don'ts think we are using different concepts here. i think the language very clearly just lays

it out as you only use gross floor area, there is no indication we use anything else. and to the project sponsor point, if we were go toog use something we have to make it up out of thin air because it in the code and does not seem to be called out as intent from the board of supervisors. commissioner eppler to get to your concerns about the term buildable, i think what may be helpful here is that it says it has to be developed to less then 20 percent of the-i think important to note that principally permitted principally modifying permitted meaning permitted without additional entitlement and buildable gross floor area as it is permitted in the sense that not it doesn't require entitlement but that it fits within the permitted envelope that could be developed on the site. i think that is what is creating that language issue there is because you have principally permitted-

>> thank you. that is time. >> thank you, i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. precedent swig has a question. >> you told us the story about what is the story, but what is the story about the assessor office regarding this 2 story as you claim a 3 stor y is that something-are you worried about it? should we be worried about it? it is brought up. >> in short, no. the assessor determination of property and what factors they use to calculate how they tax property has no basis how the planning code is applied to the property so we get situation wheres information is wildly inaccurate or use terms-i don't think that has rel

vens here. >> with regard to the question of a project, what is the project a project? and is this a project or is this a concept and is the basically what is proposed the concept being proposed is sipulated by a bunch of rules? i like what was said x plus y equals 4. thanks for that. so, is this a concept that goes forward if x plus y equals 4 and basically you come to the calculation that x plus eye equals 4, so you think the concept should move towards the project? >> i think that is a more accurate way to put it. i appreciate putting that out because that is what-we know what the floor is. we know the twept percent limit it st. question of the numerator and denominator and how you calculate those things so that is a better way to consider it. i love to fiend the

perfect analogy to get at separating the actual project proposed to be built, versus this theoretical exercise that is required as part of a eligibility requirement just to get to the actual project. we have this problem with state density bonus projects too where you have to go through a base project process. the base project has nothing to do with the actual-it just calculation requirement, so i know that could be really challenging but it is really inherent here that this determination and all the information included in my letter has basically nothing to do with what's actually proposed in the project to be built. >> right. so, addressing commissioner trasvina's question, what we are asked to do tonight is to determine whether your x plus y equals 4 metaphorically, allows

this concept to fit into the parameters of a standard that allows it to go forward as a project, is that what we are doing here? >> this is a eligibility requirement. either you meet this eligibility requirement and you can move forward as a project and go through that process which mentioned end up back before you again or not eligible and not available to take advantage of the program. it is just this binary yes or no does the project meet this eligibility requirement. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. no further questions commissioners this matter is submitted as remindser the standard of review is air or abuse of discretion. >> commissioner eppler. >> thank you. first i want to start off by acknowledging the concerns of the neighbors of this project. we entered into a brave new world when

it comes to development with bonuses and baseline thresholds for bonus and theoretical bonuses to make the thresholds and we see it in my neighborhood and it is outside of the character because they are bonuses and they are outside of what the planning department had originally set and so it is a difficult different thing. what is in front of us tonight i think it is a very narrow question and the narrow question is, how we interpret this math problem we have in front of us, and i think that when we parse this and you take a ratio, the units of the praishio to get to percentage have to be the same and i think that that aside if we look at this language we have a lot of a certain size where building are developed, and those buildings are less then 20 percent of the lots

principally permitted buildable gross floor area, and so it is obvious-i think it is relatively obvious that when it comes to the numerator, the units need to be the same and measurement units of the denominator and that that would be the gross floor area. the defined term, the one we have useful in the planning code. so, that is the numerator. the denominator is trickier, because we have this word buildable and it is redundant but there anyway and we have to figure out what buildable means. i find that the code again gives us help because it says what is buildable as determined by 3 different things. those 3 things are all within the planning code. height limits, rear yard requirements and setbacks. we are not referring to other areas of the code like the building code even

though in practice that is what we would do, but this is a theoretical exercise. it doesn't refer to tax assessment. we got different areas of the code and they define things differently, and i reminded of that example of solid hazardous waste doesn't have to to be solid hazardous or waste. we deal with definitions of what is sensible logical or in practice but what is written in the page in the code and that is my interpretation of this. the buildable is the hard one. buildable is the softest point on this to me but that is how i think of it right now. >> commissioner limburg. >> i somewhat begrudgingly confer can commissioner epplers analysis on this. i think mr. teeg had the job in

this case of interpreting a code section that was frankly very poorly drafted by it board of supervisors and i think you know, i definitely hear the appellate and all the neighbors concerns and i think they are valid and i think you know, this project because it is so nebulous in the current form has-i think the neighbors and appellate have the right to be concerned about this project for a lot of other reasons, but i do think what is in front of us is this math equation and you know, i think mr. teeg has given a reasonable explanation as to how and why he came to the answer he did. again, one of the situations i might have come out some other way. i might have done that calculation differently myself, but that's not what we are here to decide necessarily. we are

here to decide whether as the standard of review whether mr. teeg aired or abused discretion as to this formula and really what we got here is this very very poorly drafted ordinance passed by the board of supervisors that didn't have sufficient review. noted that mr. teeg admitted to watching the board of surprisers hearing to see if there was guidance given and the determination is there was not which isn't surprising but also i think speaks as to the lengths to which mr. teeg went to try to do the best way he knew how, so yeah, i am definitely in--i think i'm into the corner of denying the appeal with obviously the caveat that there are many further steps of review to come with

this project and we haven't seen drawings for this project yet and haven't been presented so there is much to come in the future. >> would you like to make that a motion before commissioner trasvina adds further comment and i do myself? >> i like to hear what commissioner trasvina has to say and then make a motion. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you president swig. i want to thank everyone for the presentation. i share the discomfort of my colleagues, and i think each presenter including some members of the public describe this as fiction and i didn't seen up for fiction. for the members of the public and members in the neighborhood and community, this is a real building, it will be a real building, it will have a real impact on the community. also going to provide real housing for people who need it as well, but it seems to me that this

is based upon the eligibility is based upon something that doesn't really exist and i think we are trying to-struggling with getting a understanding of what the 2063b8 means and also b9 and while we can say well the board of supervisors could have done it better i assume when they are meeting they got a deputy city attorney in the room. they got the relevant departments. maybe not in the room but nearby and it seems we are just passing along this-an exercise and it gives me a lot of discomfort. i hear my colleague talk how section 8b is defined and permitted buildable gross floor area determined by height limits et cetera. i read it as the gross floor area is

determined by the height limits rear yard requirements and required setbacks of buildable may be a different word and hanging differently then gross floor area. but in any situation we are-i think there's virtually zero connection to-nobody has faith this theoretical construction is actually going to hap in in the project so when the letter of determination is written by the department, it is a letter about the project. it is the project must meet the applicability requirements. rectomy now we dont have a project. we have various ideas of project but the project doesn't exist and to that extent i would say that--i feel the letter was premature because the project

was not defined and had the department picked one, then they could have said meets or doesn't. the only good thing i can say here is that i think we will see everybody back here at some point in the future, so while i think the vote will come out not in the favor of the appellate tonight, i think there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the overall process whether legislative or otherwise but do think we will see you all again. thank you. >> so, i do not think that the zoning administrator aired or abused. i agree with all things you all said. i think mr. trasvina you should run for supervisor so you can make sure these guys draft thingz correctly. we are dealing with ambiguity and abstract and trying to make it real. i think that is what you

just said, which is impossible at this point. but, the air of use, mr. teeg did the best he could given the issues brought forth by commissioner eppler and commissioner lemburg. i'm comfortable in allow tg to move forward because i know and it-my crystal ball which is permanently fixed in the repair shop, but i just know that there will be a lot more scrutiny as this concept moves into a real proposal with drawings and stuff and measurements and analytics and i know it will be reviewed several times and i am going to guess that most likely we are going to have a revisit on this given the amount of

public scrutiny and energy that it will exist. so, i don't--i would not regret allowing it to move forward by denying the appeal and comfortable that it isn't going to slip through the cracks. we will have a birch of scrutiny analysis and public comment which is most important. i would support commissioner lemberg's anticipated motion, unless somebody else has further comment? >> i do have a further comment if i could and that is, to say that if i find on this matter or the other matter an abuse of discretion or error by the department it is no way casting apirations oen the fine work the department does.

(inaudible) dbi as well. i know that is not what you were saying but i know people watch the vid videos and wouldn't want someone to go back and say there is question. someone said the numbers are fudged. i don't think they are fudged. there is disagreement what goes thin numerator and denominator. honest differences of definitions. so i just want to make it clear. thank you. >> i move to deny the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator neither errored or abused discretion in the letter of determination. >> okay. on commissioner lemburg's motion- [roll call] >> motion carries 4-0

and appeal denied. since we lost the lake street items we have a tree item and then permits on 23 avenue. i think the tree people there is a lot of public comment. should we switch the order or do you want to go with what is on the agenda? >> yeah, i see your point. i think that we switching would be- >> okay. we will hear the 23 avenue cases first when we come back from the 5 minute break. thank you so much for [meeting reconvened] >> okay, ready president swig? welcome back to december 14, 2022 meeting of san francisco board of appeals. we will be hearing item 6a and 6b next. these are appeal numbers 22-076

and 77. kieran maher, subject propertyy 146 23rd avenue. appealing the issuance on october 5, 2022, to thomas monahan, of an alteration permit (add structural beam and structural piers; replace existing wood column and piers; replace existing slab and reinforce foundation). permit appealing issuance on october 31, 2022 of alteration permit. (structural upgrade to beam, add structural piers, replace wood columns and piers, replace existing slab, reinforce the foundation, minor plumbing and electrical work; excavation of two feet for additional head height in middle section; to comply with complaint no. 202296964). permit no. 2022/10/28/5449. and

we will hear from the appellates first. (inaudible) representing the appellate and you have 14 minutes. >> good evening and happy holidays commissioners and julie and alec and mr. gibner. >> i'm scott (inaudible) and represent the maher family. they are long time san francisco residents who until now had nothing but good relation with the neighbors. this appeal is about a straight forward issue. a permit holder excavated next to the neighbor foundation without providing the legally required notice without getting the required permits be allowed to continue work even though the permit holder is covered up the unlawful work so neither the neighbor nor dbi can inspect the prior work and make sure the neighbor foundation is sound and been properly protected. i sure hope the answer is obvious, no, the permit holder shouldn't be

allowed to get away with that. the maher family last august a substantial amount of excavation occurred next door. they could see it was oen the property line and that it appeared to be quite deep below the beneath the foundation. as you have seen the video, you have seen photos, but here is one overhead please one photo showing shockingly deep excavation they observed. what did they do? they tried to resolve the issue in a neighboring way. they asked the permit holder to make sure he had proper permits, they asked for plans to be confident the foundation want in danger of being undermined and brushed off as don't worry comments from mr. monahan, but mr. monahan realized he had been caught red handed so did two things. first piled

dirt to hide the unlawful excavation. second he applied for a permit issued in october but the permit falsely stated it was just for strengthening an existing foundation not excavating and creating a new one. the maher appealed the permit. dbi "determined the scope of work was misrepresented on the plan excavation of the footing on the south side under mine the foundation, notice of violation issue". mr. monahan tried to circumvent the stop work notice applying for a second permit which should not have been issued while this is pending. we know mr. monahan (inaudible) we know covered up the work before it can be inspected. from the limited

information the maher engineers were able to obstain they believe the foundation may have been under mined. all they want is to see what mr. monahan did in lawfully and determine if danger exist to the foundation. the permit holder brief doesn't explain why mr. monahan failed to comply with state law to make sure the property was protected. it doesn't explain why engaged in substantial excavation and foundation work without permits. it constains professionals work mr. monahan hopes to do going forward but nothing about the unlawful work that is done and whether was done to protect or sure up the foundation. the permit holder suggested the mahers are not concerned about their

home, but rather extortion artist endangering the permit holder to get a pay-off. they say the maher demand the permit holder pay $50 thousand or more. infact, i drafted an agreement that asked mr. monahan to reimburse the mahers incurred and put a cap of $50 thousand. i negotiated dozens of these neighbor agreements mptd this is a standard type provision. this is the provision too small for you to read that provides for the supposed extortion. i have blown it up here. as you can see, it doesn't put a dollar in the maher pocket. it asks for reimbursement of expenses to incur to try to understand what unlawful work was done and how it can be

fixed. i made it clear in the comment in the margin that not asking for payment, i'm asking-putting a cap on the reimburtsment expenses. fwut again (inaudible) it diverts attention from the real issue. the real issue is unlawful work that needs to be inspected. the mahers are a sweet family. they are good neighbors, they are victims here. they are simply home owners who woke up to find without any notice their neighbor was undermining their foundation. please grant these appeals, dont let work go forward until mr. monahan does the right thing and provide access to engineer and dbi. i like you to now hear from kieran maher. >> good evening. my name is

kieran maher and proud to say local san franciscans born and raised in the city. when i was a young kid i saw my parents struggle to save every penny they cood for our family. to richmond district fts a wonderful community to grow up in. we had many kind neighbors that cared for one another on the block and more then 15 years my family lived there. over the years my family has developed relationships. we looked after the eld rly on the block when they needed help. baby-sat neighbors kidsen the blocks (inaudible) even to this day. we taught kids how to play sports and even currently coaching 2 middle school basketball teams in the city. unfortunately i'm missing a game tonight to be here in

court. we had great relationships with our last 4 neighbors on both sides over the last 15 plus years. we (inaudible) when on vacation. i even dog sit and house sit the next door neighbor's at 146 23 avenue for the old owners. i moved back home during the pandemic because my mom is handicap and multiple-during the pandemic our neighbor at 14 23 avenue jimmy died of sudden heart attack. i remember that date vividly. i woke up that morning to several missed phone calls and text messages and christina and jimmy adams came to console christina after the loss i was the first neighbor they called. they called me to watch their puppy

after jimmy passed that morning. i took the puppy for a long walk that day and picked up a bunch of pastrys and sandwiches from ang linas deli around the corner for everyone grieving the loss. my family and i care about our community and next door neighbors. when christina sold the house we hoped to have a similar positive relationship with the new neighbors. but we received no introduction to our new neighbors, and the first interaction wehad with them was unpermitted excavation of the garage and foundation on august 16, 2022. since that day in august i have spoken to mr. monahan as a concerned neighbor with simple request, to do the project with permits follow regulation and do it by the book so it does not damage my family's home. my family have tried to extend olive branch to mr. monahan for months and still are. pleased to do the construction by the book by not damaging the two neighbors foundations as fallen

on deaf ears for the last 5 months and that is why we are here today. my family and i simply asking the board to help find out what work was done without notice and without permits next to and under our foundation. if am monahan remove the dirt this work so our engineers can make sure our foundation has been protected then we can all live in peace. so please do not let mr. monahan rezoom work until engineer and dbi can inspect the prior work and make sure it was done by the book. >> thank you. you have 4 minutes and 40 second said. you are fine. thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> (inaudible) would you detail specifically as you can the needs of the maher family--you said we need stuff done to insure that no

damage-can you specifically detail what steps you want done to insure that that family is comfortable? when i hear-the the reason i ask for this is i want my fellow commissioners to hear it, and second, when dbi comes to the podium, i want to ask them is this a reasonable scope in consideration if we fiend that in fact there is evidence of truth and not doubting it, in your testimony, so we have natural steps to move forward if need be. if you can detail exactly what steps need to be done to make the appellate comfort ort chblt >> thank you. i will back into that. what i mean by that is, let's look what should

have happened. what happens throughout the city, this is city with buildings next to each other. somebody wants to excuvite, that is fine, they give notice to the neighbor, that gives the neighbor the opportunity to in advance know what the work is going to be, have their engineers examine the plans and specks and if necessary take steps to protect the property and what so frequently happened lawyers get involved to draft an agreement and the agreement says for example, the effected neighbor we will survey their property- >> i don't want you to testify again. i asked you very specific question. i am giving you a opportunity here. i know you already testified that notice wasn't given. you also testified you think and will get the conformation from dbi a permit was not applied for or issued for work that

was done a little too soon. so, and we know that there is fear that from the property owner that their house may have been undermined. we know all that. so, what i'm specifically asking at this point based-we heard your testimony, what you said we need some things to get done to make sure that everything is okay. what specific things do you need to get done and referring to your own document that will in cost not exceed approximately $30 thousand. >> right. so, sorry if i wasn't being as specific as i should have been. since we are trying to undo what has been done first we need the dirt removed so that dbi and our engineers can go in and see what was the scope of the excavation, if it was

in fact below the foundation, what work was done when they shifted the scope of work to make sure that the unlawful work did not undermine the foundation. was there under pinning? was under pinning necessary? if not, was there grouting or other infill that was done so that engineers can tell the family it is okay. maybe jumped the gun or do the right way- >> engineering reviewed. >> and if the review says it is not safe, then a collaborative effort between mr. monahan engineers, dbi and our engineers to institute a under pinning program to make sure that the maher foundation is safe and they go forward with their work. >> thank you very much. mr. trasvina. yield to you. >> i have a brief question. i

appreciate the answer to president swig. what you are requesting obviously relates to your client and your property. are you aware of the extent of any of the work on the 150 on the side of the property that abuts 150, 23 avenue? are you aware it is greater or less then what is on the other adjoining line? >> appears to be greater from what dbi found and the property owner is here to testify in public comment. >> then i'll forego the rest of my questions because i was not aware of the person--i'll happy to hear from the 150, 23 avenue property owner. thank you. >> thauj thank you. we'll now hear from the permit holder.

you have 14 minutes. thank you. >> thank you honorable commissioners and executive director. my name is michael bets from allen mack law firm here to represent lauren monahan also a bay area native. what was supposed to be a dream come true buying a home in san francisco became a nightmare due to a bully neighbor seeking to take advantage of this appellate process knowing it will stop the construction. in short, after she bought her home she learned of foundational issues. working with her father they tried to correct it. any of the corrective work they have done will not pose any threat to anybody's property. in fact quite the opposite. by securing her property in the foundation it will secure the neighboring properties. you heard zero not one piece of evidence that any of the work that has been done or will be

done will present any problem. the neighbor seized on the process we all know about filed appeal and you are right sought $50 thousand from the initial agreement you didn't see and if we pay at theen of the agreement they will go away. that is what this is all been about. lauren took the high road worked with dbi and neighbor to try to fix everything and we have been open book since the beginning. permits issued, there is zero argument or complaints the permits issued which we are here for today have any problem what so ever. there speculation. there is complaints about what something happened in the past and there is two pages on the brief you saw that takes shots at their family. the great family you heard about, that is all they have done, taken shots and insults at the monahans and when this all didn't work out meaning we didn't pay, they threatened to hire attorney with influence over the board. they made threats that she and

her family will be harmed if they don't make the payment to them. there is arguments that they blocked the driveway, taken pictures, all these things-nothing that has to do with the permit but if we pay the money they go away. we urge and respect san francisco wants people like lauren thatp want to come to the city. you will hear from lauren, father expert and conclude issues. we very much appreciate your time. >> hello. thank you for your time this evening mpts my name is lauren monahan and i am the owner of the home at 146 23 avenue. it is my primary residential. the home built in 1916 and needed repairs which i was aware of from the inspection report. we put a new roof on and painted the house. with inspection report did not disclose was the failing of the foundation of the home. it said further

inspection required which we did. professionals were hired plans drawn and they were approved. not only once but twice by dbi. there is no evidence presented that shows any harm done to the appellate property. none. i reclaimed they made speculative. i'll let tom and john speak in greater detail. since having puchsed the home my safety has been jeopardized and i have been harassed by the appellate. i have already experienced one significant earthquake while in my home due the appellate delaying the ret row fit and knowing the state of the foundation at the time i genuinely feared for my life. further more the appellates used intimidation harassing and workers hired for work unrelated to this appeal. threatened to sabotage relationship with had neighbors on the block because they know everyone. lawyer up with attorney if we didn't agree to

the settlement and demand i pay $50 thousand and required $10 million of insurance for 400 square foot retrofit. they threatened to delay the project. taken photographs during unrelated work such as paintjug landscaping and refused to stop. they also moved paint buckets and items my property blocked driveway with the car just last week. despite trying to be accommodating to the appellate concerns, they have not been cooperative. when we met with them and offered to show the plans they didn't want to look at them. in fact in a face to face conversation they told me they didn't care what i did to my house so these appeals came as a surprise. considering we have redrawn the plans and aultdered the scope of work to cater to their concern i question the appellate

motive. every time we address their problem their concerns change and now they are mostly monetary. i do not have $50 thousand to give the appellate. i don't have $30 thousand to give the appellate. this project is already more then budgeted for. i spent my life savings trying to buy the home. i ask the board reinstate the secondary building permit so i may complete the retrofit without delay. i do not want to live in fear in my own house. the appellate has painted a picture we are doing something wrong here. every action that we have taken has been in good faith. i am simply try toog do the right thing and repairing my home. authorize building permit and approval from licensed professionals should be sufficient in trying to update the foundation of my own home. please do not allow the appellate to delay my ability to live in safety and enjoy my home. >> thank you board members. tom monahan and will

give my perspective on what happened. i'm lauren's father. she bought the house in the summer. the inspection report done by the seller is the report she relied upon. shoe knew it needed a new roof and had a new roof put on. it also needed painting and there was miner reference in that inspection report about cracks in the foundation that require further inspection. i did not see the report before she bought the house after she closed escrow i walked the basement property with her and saw the cracks referenced in a miner way were much much more substantial and i said this needs to be reviewed. when they went to review it, it turns out that the structural slab was 2 inches thick, it no reinforced-no rebar. the house was built in 1916 so

it is over hundred years old and back then the foundations were not properly reinforced. so, the main structural beams not on the perimeter of the property but the middle of the property those posts were very unsupported and bear substantial weight on the property. so, an effort was made to try to explore how bad the foundations were and so digging did involve that. there was destruction of that small slab and as soon as we got into the work we realized that this is much more substantial then we thought. there was never a cover up, never a effort to do anything incorrectly, it was a exploritary phase of the work and that was august and they worked about a week before they figured out what was going on. it was at that point we realized we needed to get a

basically replacement for the foundation that was failing, and sought to do that. a permit was issued in october licensed professionals hired. irem i'm a licensed architect and have been 40 years but it was something i wanted additional professional help on and so we called in a consulting architect johnegeen who will speak to you soon and structural engineer and soil engineering to evaluate that. laren's behalf i have more expertise and pulled a permit and that permit sought to support-this is tiny little less then 400 square feet project. it is a very very small area we are talking about, and a permit was designed, it was issued and the building inspector came and we explained everything going on. he said yes it all

looks fine. he suggested we talk to the maher, we did, knocked on their door, spoke to mr. maher senior and said i'm fine with everything you are doing and said would you like to see it, here is set of plans. i don't want it every is fine. we said okay, good. we are going to resume work which we did in a couple days later he was worried again and filed an initial appeal. that appeal said revise the permit seek for renewed permit within 5 days, pull permit within 15 days and complete the work within 30 days so that is exactly what the notice of violation said. i can show a copy if you like to see it. one 5 or 6 days submitted new permit which brought in the premter work to the inshould inside of the premter 5 feet away from either property line, which our engineers and everybody said

that should solve the problem. it isn't going to undermine anybody's foundation and modify the permit and got a second permit where a more limit ed scope of work and that permit was reviewed, i went to the building department and sat with the building inspector for hours and went through that whole process. they were okay with it. we issued that permit issued. we paid for that permit. we explained to the mahers we modified the permit, gave copies of that so we have done anything we can think of. we met with their engineer. they had a engineer and offered to have our engineer speak to his engineer. we did not excavate any (inaudible) it is 5 feet away and what was done was small pot holing to determine whether the footings were. we did not encounter they footings. we did

not go acrauz the property line so the concerns are very speculative. i think we are acting in good faith. we have acted in good faith and i would encourage the board to reject the appeal and allow lauren-right now the house is supported with temporary bracing and she is very concerned that she wants to complete the work and we are try ing to do everything with permits above board, there is no hidden agenda here. this is i think a big concern and big fear and i think there is really no actual damage or chance of damage. i think in your packet you got letters from the structural engineer and soils engineer, so i'll turn it over to john egen a architect helping us on the project. thank you. >> happy holidays. john egen a architect in

california and tom asked me to consult with him on this project. the revised scope of work tom is describing is in the initial permit that he did pull from the city had foundation work that was underneath his existing foundation, and the revised scope of work he moved that work 5 feet away from the property line. now, to explain that why that is significant to you, tom's talking about roughly 2 foot deep excavation and if you think about going back 5 feet and down 2 feet, it means the forces from any adjacent footing are going to go well underneath that. there is no-it is a force of gravity. the house comes down, the forces go at a angle, 5 feet back and 2 feet down which means that that work will no longer have any

physical effect on that location. the one thing we would recommend to do, which is not currently on the revised permit, is to have the soil engineer who came out to the site confirm the compaction of the soil at the location where he did the explore tor work so tom looked at the foundation to see what was there. that is a pretty standard practice that you do what is called pot holing where you dig and look to see what the foundation is made out of, it is crumbling or major problem and at the location compact the soil back and compaction should be checked by the geo technical engineer tom has. >> 30 seconds. >> that is standard practice. other then that, i suggest reinstating the second permit on the premise lauren's house is currently sureed up

and all the work is occurring well within the property and not at the property line any longer. >> thank you. we have a few questions, president swig and commissioner lemburg. >> i think i will ask counsel to come to the podium. you can answer on behalf of your client. >> michael (inaudible) carolyn chase cocounsel. >> we have seen evidence it is claimed that work was done without a permit. was work done without a permit? you are under oath. >> i dont know. >> alright. counsel sit down because this is where lawyers get in my way. ms. monahan- >> hello. >> hi. did you do

work without a permit at your home? >> we did miner exploratory work which i understand is typical. >> okay, thank you. did work without a permit. councilor also, you made me upset. i have to say, because you implied that lawyers have influence over this board. there isn't a lawyer in the world that has influence over this board and that imply we are corrupt and we are not corrupt. if the mayor of san francisco who appointed me walked in the door scr said, rich i want you to look at this and look in this direction i would look the other way. i just want to let you know nobody is inflelsh inflelsh over. >> i didn't say you were. we were told that they hired someone that do that. they (inaudible) >> you can be

comfortable that we are not influenced by anybody. >>ia gree. >> and we are not corrupt and any implication by that counsel or your counsel or any counsel that walks in the room and implies that we can be influenced is a very up setting thing to this person who is a volunteer who sat here for nearly 10 years and i want to tell you something, nobody influences me. please sit down. >> i (inaudible) it isn't what i said and will be on public record. we told they were going to hire someone that could, that is what i said. i never said that this board can be influenced. >> look at the tape. thank you. mr. lemburg. >> thank you president swig. i very strungly agree with everything you just said mptd i alsoment to ask a couple questions. you asked one of them which is was work done without a permit was my first question. the answer

is yes. as we already heard. the second question and obviously i believe dbi will speak as to this because the notice of violation that was issued was actually for the property on the other side of the property from the maher's property which was not super clear from the briefing. what was my question? i lost it. you were not the one who upset me. what i haven't seen in the response from the permit holder is any addressing of the notice of violation from the department of building inspection and the merits which are clearly laid out more so then usual in a nov for the property. can you-any of you speak as to why the nov was issued the way it

was and why there was-there is a allegation from neighbor on one side undermining who appealed it and finding by dbi on the other side that it was in fact undermined. >> i can speak to that. >> thank you. >> so, the situation you have is that you have notice of violation that there was work occurring without a permit. and so the owner drew up plans, discussed with structural engineers, kis diss cuzed architects submitted planned to the city and obtained permit for the work. that is typical response if given a noting of violation having done work and this could be any type of work. at times in this case it is work in a basement and adjacent to neighbors and people are very concerned and so we tried to address that. other times it is where someone says only allowed to have a 3

foot 6 fence and get a notice of violation to get a permit. the monahans got a permit. that is normal response to that. when it was rejected and there was a and put on hold they revised the permit and tried to resolve that by moving the work away from the property line. again, that is a typical thing to do because they want to button up the project as fast they can. they are not look frg a prolonged process where they have a house sureed up. it isn't a good situation. move the work away from the property line and continue. that was the second permit. i think now we are here because work construction experts and we understand how to try to resolve things, other folks are not necessarily and we are trying to be as accommodating as we can to explain

why this is okay. or why this should be acceptable and why i said the compaction report along the property line should solve the situation because that is basically saying the soil has been put in place at a compaction level that is appropriate and supports the condition. should take care of everything. >> thaurng. thank you. question from commissioner trasvina. >> if i can call you back first mr. egen. so, but i want to say broughtly broadly i share president swigs concerns over both the statements tonight and also some of the things in the brief. for my question for you, i believe you or others described this as a very small area, only 400 square feet. can you be a little more clear as to are we talking 4 by

hundred or 8 by 50? what are we talking about? how do we get to 400 square feet? >> the (inaudible) you drive you car in and half way through the garage there was a 2 foot retaining wall and the soil was a little higher. behind that parking space is where there was 3 posts in the middle of the garage. those are the ones that tom is saying were sitting on the unreinforced slab of concrete. they were taking that out to see underpin it and i think that at the end of the day realized they needed to get a permit. it is the rear area on the back of the house. roughly 20 by 20. >> okay. >> now it is even smaller because now they moved it in 5 feet. >> let me add for a

garage i wouldn't consider 20 by 20 a small area. a second question i have, now that you moved the work 5 feet, have you evaluated any impact on the original work on the neighboring premise? >> so, where they did their exploritary work tom filled with concrete which is stronger-there is compacted sand is what is there now, so the concrete is stronger then that, and that was 2 foot little areas where he explored and in order to get to that exploration he had to scoop the earth and put the earth back and compact properly. >> based on your assessment there is no lingering

impact or current impact of the work done. >> as long as the earth is confirmed as having been put back at the proper compaction by a geo technical engineer then there is no effect that has occurred. and to do that it is easy. we just note that on the drawing. you have to resubmit to dbi to approve as a note on the drawing. >> have you done that assessment or are you saying that is part of what you would do in the future? >> the geo technical engineer came out to the site as part of this process because-we want to make people happy and resolve the issue. >> you are not answering my question. >> sorry. >> have you or the geo technical engineer assessed that there no damage to the neighboring property? >> i believe the geo technical engineer reviewed it in the field and had a letter he wrote that- >> the answer is yes. >> yes.

>> thank you. the question for the attorney, thank you mr. egen. i believe mrs. chase you wrote the brief? >> yes, sir. >> you mentioned that your client had to suffer through a earthquake where she risked her life. can you elberate on that in san francisco? >> it want in san francisco. i thij it originated in san jose and as a result of that earthquake she became more concerned about the status of her foundation. >> thank you. has she had to vacate the space? >> she has not. >> she has not. okay. you mentioned in your brief about extortion, other

intimidation tactics. have you or anyone filed police reports on that regard? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear flaum department of building inspection. >> good evening commissioners. matthew green. i like to go over the timeline of the permit. october 5 the permit ending in 2353 was issued for structural up grades. tupeers the work did start prior to the permit issued. we did not receive any complaints on that matter so i cannot comment on that but it appears the work did start before the permit issued. october 11 received complaint alleging work beyond the scopef the permit. october 14, the site visit performed by the inspector who appeared the work was going on

according to that permit. october 20, second site visit performed and nov issued beyond the scope of the permit including unpermitted excavation. issued a stop order and back fill the lot and compact the excavation and also required to submit engineer report addressing the compaction and the structural integrity of the structure. dbi received notice of appeal from the board and nov issuance. the nov issued as a result of the complaint investigation and was not related to the appeal. it was a coincident and permit issued the same day. as of 4 p.m. we have not received a engineer report for compaction which we required submitted one within

5 days so should have had a report by november 25 and have not received one. second permit ending in 5499-sorry, 5449 issued october 31 for similar work and excavation and bringing excavation in 5 feet from the property lines. i can't say this permit was obtained in good faith to comply with the nov and circumvent the previous appeal. we should have received the engineer report compaction and confirmed impaction filling was done before the permit issued. i believe we issued the permit in error. if the permit was not appealed i would have suspended until the result of the hearing was known. (inaudible) verified the area had been back filled as ordered and another received the appeal notice for second permit on the same day of the site visit. i

would say i hesitate they asked the second permit be up held and there was work done on the first permit that needs to be inspected so hesitate for one permit to be revoked and one permit to be upheld. i do say we still have a order requesting the engineer report. we have not received that. the property at 150 23 avenue was under mined and there is notice violation issued against that property asking them to advising the property is under mined kwr get a engineer report and the property and make repairs as necessary. that is pretty standard procedure when a property is under mined we issue notice of violation against the property rather then the property that caused the problem that way--the unsafe condition is that the

property at 150. i am a little conflicted about what to recommend here whether the appeal should be up held and brand new permit with full geo technical analysis or not or allow both permits to be moved forward with the addition of the geo tech assessment. we can easily add geo tech requirements to the special inspection requirement for this project that would confirm that the excavation is done safely. available for any questions you may have. >> president swig. >> thank you. you reported you testified that when you came to the property you saw there had been work done advance of getting proper permitting. just because it no notice of violation doesn't make it any

less illegal correct? >> correct. >> it is illegal the work was done prior to a permit issued? >> you should get a building permit for exploratory work as well. >> thank you. >> further more you are testifying that the work that has been done requires some reports within a specific time period and also exceeded the scope of the terms of the permit and so both of those can be considered illegal acts? >> the notice of violation we issued asked to submit engineer report within 5 days. there are special inspections attached to the two issued permits that need to be submitted by special inspectors or structural engineers prior to completion of the permit. the legal act-could you rephrase the question?

>> they didn't come up with the report as determined condition of the notice of violation and issuance of the permit, they are acting outside of legal scope? >> they are not in compliance with innotice of violation. >> thank you. i lost track after that. there was a third notice- >> the neighbor property at 150 23 avenue was undermined by the work that created a unsafe condition as 150 23 avenue so issued notice of violation to the property owner. >> right. i don't think as much as i like to talk about that as far as that's not the scope tonight, the scope tonight is the permit at hand? >> correct. >> okay. i'm going to look at the--so, it is a coincidence all happened to be a notice of violation on the other side of

the property but that doesn't necessarily have any influence on our decision tonight, correct? or does it? i need rules. >> you are right you are not considering the work on 150, but i think it is fair to ask for context to understand the entire scope of the project. >> thank you. now- >> i wouldn't say it is coincidence, it was a direct result of the work done beyond the scope of the permits. >> i just didn't want to dabble talking about one permit which is not in question. sometimes we drift from our scope. so, in the past i think this is your first under your replacing mr. duffy we had undermining foundation discussion and you know, i remember one, i think

it was pacific heights, i remember one on sacramento street, i remember one out in the avenue somewhere, and the testimony is always the same. is our house going to fall down? that is basically the neighbor comes in and says, oh my god, they are undermining our foundation from next door and we had no idea. there is no permit. is our house going to fall down? we are scared to death. that is the consistent testimony. at which points we sit here and we say, okay, how do we make them feel more comfortable about this as we go through the process? the legal piece. can you tell us and so tell the appellate the steps that dbi joe duffy did a great job. now it is your chance to sit on the big stage,

how dbi protects citizens who have those fears? citizens that are subject to their neighbors doing illegal work on foundations and potentially undermining their next door neighbor's foundation. what does dbi do-what steps is dbi going to take at this point-forget the appeal is validated or invalidated but what is dbi going to do to mike make sure the appellate is comfortable and protected and the guy on the other side too? >> we did it. we wrote a notice of violation and notice one foundation was undermined as work proceeds inspections will be done by district inspector. there will also be reports submitted by the structural engineer for the project for the foundation. if we notice any

undermining of the neighbor foundation during the inspection process we'll issue stop work order and notice of violation. if there is any complaints we are not there all the time, the neighbor is. if there are complaints we investigate. >> and what comfort are you going to offer-not challenging you-joe had a great-he reassured on a constant basis with detail on the process dbi goes through to make sure the neighbor house doesn't fall down because the foundation is undermined. what steps can these folks be assured will be taken that you have this project under scrutiny to make sure that further-any damage

-potential damages is done? >> like i said, we will be doing regular inspection of the work before anything is covered up the inspectors will observe the work being done and the adjacent property and any concerns we will stop the work and have it addressed. we dont want unsafe work covered anymore then the neighbors do, and one of the request of the appellate was engineering review. i would fully support attaching to these permits having engineering review for the work that has been done and before any work proceeds we can -i don't know if you want to put monitoring oen the two neighboring properties. i think that they did start this process prior to the permit being issued. it does not look like they gave the proper notification thoothe neighbors. i don't think that is

excessive to have monitoring period adjacent properties put in place prior to further work starting. >> and i don't recall so this isn't a set up question, this is honest, i don't remember stuff, buts in the cases that i recall that this same thing happened, sorry for not being-you are not unique guys-there were other issues related to the same thing. the neighbor said how do we get our guys in there to make sure that--to give a opinion that we are paying for or that we are initiating instead of the people who took an illegal act. i can support that concern, and so what steps

should the neighbors the appellate be expected to take to assure that they are seeing with they eyes everything is okay sore or leave to you? what about expenses regarding their hiring of their own engineers their own specialist, how does that fit in? i will ask the city attorney also about who pays for that. does the nairfb neighbor pay for it because they are concerned or do they leave it to dbi? can you comment on that? >> i can can't who is responsible for the expenses. >> is it reasonable and customary- >> i- >> they bring in their own or is would you assure that isn't necessary because dbi will make sure everything is okay?

>> we can request the reports from engineer that is public record and happy to share them with the neighbors. we can't force the permit holders to allow access to the property but any work product generated here by engineers would be public record f - >> so they should be comfortable the reports issued by your engineers and due diligence and erfts to make sure the project is finished in a legal and complaint fashion is okay? >> you mentioned our engineers. i would be happy to bring a dbi engineer to do a site visit. we could do that and submit to the board and the permit holder and neighbors if that would ease anybody's concerns. >> i wouldn't object to that. i think that would

make the appellate regardless how we go would make them feel far more comfortable. >> happy to do that. >> can i ask the city attorney, where do we-again, i can't recall when somebody is asked a appellate is asked to bring in their own folks does that become a civil matter outside the jurisdiction of this commission or is it just something that they have to do if they want it done to satisfy their own curiosity? >> commissioner swig, if you are asking who is responsible for payment, i am not entirely sure. >> we saw something put on the screen that was an agreement requested and i don't know the answer to it either and can't recall and it seems to

me it is a civil situation which is outside our jurisdiction. >> certainly the negotiation and proposed agreement about the cost sharing between the 2 parties is a civil matter and not within the jurisdiction of this board to determine. >> that's exactly what i wanted to clarify. thank you very much. commissioner lemburg. sorry for hogging the microphone. >> i have three questions for you mr. green. number one, i wanted to ask if you could confirm something stated earlier regarding any time there is a permit for excavation work to be done that there is a requirement that the neighbors be consulted. is that-can you speak as to what that requirement entails and how that process works? >> that's a state law in the building code to notify within

30 days to allow-- >> 30 days notice prior to the excavation starting. we will get it permit today, you could be expected to notify the neighbors 30 days before you start so it isn't a requirement to get the excavation permit. >> thank you. question number two, the nov issued spoke to the fact there was undermining of 150, it didn't speak as to undermining under appellate

property 144. have inspections that occurred so far, is it still possible that the work is also undermined 144 and it hasn't been determined yet and could be determined by further inspections or has it been determined that there was not undermining? >> it was undermined on 15, it wasn't obvious at inspection-there was excavation done shouldn't have been done, asked them to backfill everything and start over basically. it is possible work might have been covered up. not say tg was, it is possible. >> it is possible. and then question number three, as a practical matter if we as a board were to revoke both permits what extra layers of scrutiny would be added at dbi

level to insure compliance with geo technical experts and different experts we have been talking about to insure compliance with all of these laws we have been talking about? >> i would have to use an internal method. address block so no permits come unless-no permits issued unless they came through my desk and make sure we meet any requirements you have. >> excellent. thank you. >> thank you. i don't see further questions so move to public comment. i believe there is somebody in person who withed like to provide public comment. welcome. you have two minutes and i see a few people on zoom. >> so, my name is nina (inaudible) and i own 150, 23 avenue. i are knew nothing about any construction until i received the violation notice

that was dated october 20, 22. so, i went and knocked on the door because i was go toog ask christina woo i thought was still the owner and noticed the house was empty. nobody in the house, no furniture so i looked up the address and zillow and found it was sold in july. i don't know the new owners and never received notice about any work. i was never contacted about excavation work and very concerned because apparently the foundation was undermined. my family has owned the house since 1967, i'm 73 years old. i live there until i married in 72 and i came back and took care of my mom when she was terminally ill and my family has always had good relationships with all

our neighbors. the mahers have always been nice and kind to my mom and myself so don't believe at all they ever would threaten anybody. and i'm kind of concerned about my house because now it seems like i didn't know i was supposed to do anything and dident know what was going on, and now i receive this notice that i'm supposed to fix my house when we didn't do anything. it is kind of all i have to say. you have any questions? >> i don't see questions at this time. thank you. >> okay. >> we'll hear from susan on zoom. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. you are still muted susan. we will come back to you. we'll hear

from bradley sullivan. please go ahead. you need to unmute. go ahead. >> hi. thank you. my name is brad solomon the maher neighbor on the other side at 140 23 avenue and compelled to speak with you folks this evening. i want to say and don't say lightly the maher family our neighbors over 15 years are literally the kind est gentlest least intimidating family my wife and i have ever come into contact with. and we know what happened here. the maher's have been victimized here and i think it is particularly rich for the builders to say after illegally doing work unpermitted to say, there is only speculative concerns and no evidence as to the damage that has been done. it is speculative because the work

has been hidden and mahers engineers can't see what has taken place here. i want to implore this commission to do everything within its authority to revoke both permits, to make the mahers whole again, to alow them to inspect the damage that may have been done and insure any future work does not do damage to their property. i wish it was within your jurisdiction and authority to do more to award civil damages and i don't see the maher as a family that would pursue civil damages, not their nature. so, they are going to be harmed here regardless because of what is already happened. but this board cannot do enough to grant the appellate appeal here, revoke both permits and do everything in the power to make the maher family whole again. they are victims, please do the right thing. thank you so much. >> thank you. going

back to susan. i dont see your hand raised. do you stillp want topoid public comment? i guess that. any further public comment on this item? okay. seeing none we'll move on to rebuttal. you have 6 minutes. >> thank you. i want to make sure it is clear that what was spoken to by the permit holders is their plans now about what they want to do now. the architect talked about those plans. it is moved back from the property line and that should be good and fine. that's probably right if they started with a project that was excavating away from the property line we wouldn't be here. what we are here about is what was done in the past. what was done without permits. what is now covered up. and you haven't heard anything or

seen anything about that. the architect said an engineer looked at that and told you it was compacted. the engineer report attached to the brief is what is done in the future on the new project. it doesn't tell-i inspected this and done fine and compacted fine and don't have anything to worry about. that hasn't happened. mr. monahan said this new work they are proposing will solve the problem. yeah, it will solve the problem in the sense that new work isn't going to undermine the foundation but doesn't solve what already happened. they claim there is no evidence and speculation. i appreciate the-it is because we can't see what happened but you have a engineer report of what

has been observed by the engen ears who observed videos seen photograph and limited access to the property and they have said the soil excavation we observed during our site visit and through the photos and videos provided indicates the maher property line footing may have been compromised by the work at 146 23 avenue. i want to be clear in your questions to mr. green about will dbi do inspections and make sure it is okay? that is great but part of that needs to be inspecting what happened at the property line before. we got to get that stuff moved out. we have to have our engineers or dbi engineers go in and see what was done to back fill and was it done appropriately? as mr. green said if he did the work

he would approached the neighboring property owner and underpinned the foundation so there wasn't question about this. i don't know what to say about 50 thousand $50 thousand. i find it offensive. the mahers haven't asked for a penny. i showed the language it is about reimbursement for expenses for the monahans to say that or wasn't the monahans it was counsel that said this is about $50 thousand and if they wrote a check this would be over is very disturbing. that is all i have unless you have questions. >> president swig. >> on the last point, you understand that this board can't do anything

about anything related to a claim for cost. that is a civil matter and so some may be sympathetic, some maybe not but we sympathetic we couldn't do anything about that anyway. >> understood. >> for us it is a mute point and hope you have understanding on that. >> understood. >> the core of my question, you heard from the building department that from dbi that they one will do significant scrutiny now, and that detail of that was made clear. furthermore, that they will go to the expense and activity of getting a engineer out to insure that the

property is not only in your client eye about the other clients eye,b the building isn't at risk and not causing at risk situation to either neighbor. is there anything besides that significant scrutiny and inspection process or the dbi engineer to sure get in there and do everything that you want done and we can have that further conversation. i will ask the same later during the dbi section. is there anything else besides that inspection process or the initiation of a engineer inspection that you find necessary to put your client's at comfort? >> yes. my clients would like to have their own engineering review. and i don't know why any neighboring

property owner would not want that. what we want here is assurance that there isn't damage going forward. the monahans should want that. they don't-they should not want there to be a possibility of the civil action in the future for cracking walls and foundation. (inaudible) neighbors cooperate. >> i understand that. my favorite speech up here is folks you got to live-mrs. monahan will occupy the property or maybe won't but regard less who lives there they have to live in peace with neighbors and vice versa because that is quality of life stuff. i will ask dbi the protocol about the engagement of a private engineer

alongside with dbi (inaudible) is not the purview of this body. they have to take that up in a civil situation, but i will ask dbi about the protocol related to that potential activity. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner lemburg. >> one further question, just because it was brought up so significantly in the permit holder brief, i want to ask the question to put it to bed. you did show us the agreement that you drafted. what was the proposed consideration for that agreement for the cost sharing in the proposed agreement? >> so, there is about 4 page agreement provides for monitoring setting baseline and taking meserments so we can see if there is movement. having the engineers perform

that monitoring in exchainge nge we would withdraw or appeal and not object tanew scope of work and reimbursed for the cost incurred and doing the monitoring and engineering conformation. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. so, we will now hear from the permit holders. 6 minutes. >> thank you. in terms whether damage is done, we submit there is no evidence the work caused damage to the appellates and i understand the argument or claim that the property was back filled but that was a condition required from the city was to back fill it. the second issue is that i don't think there is any testimony or evidence that the actual permit being challenged and has to be revoked has anything wrong with it. it is more about concerns. in that

vain we do respectfully request the permits with the conditions about the geo technical report. engineering review my clients offered to have to show the plans. you heard about that and hasn't been refruited but we operated with a open book and offered to have dbi look at the work being done so for those reasons we request appeals be denied and others have a few comments. >> you have more time. okay, thank you. >> caroline chase. i want to mention two thingz in the context of these appeals. the first is that we heard from dbi i think that there are 2 paths here for this board. one of them is to deny the

appeals. i heard the request to actually uphold both permits because some work had been conducted under the first permit but i think it was only a matter of a few days so uphold the initial permit and the revised permit with the condition that a soil compaction test be prepared by the soil engineer and that is something that lauren has already agreed to do and is more then willing to include that as a condition to a revised version of the second permit. so, in terms of the actual appeals before you, i think that that should be the focus procedurally and we just respectfully request that you deny the appeals and uphold the permits with that condition imposed primarily because there

is a concern in terms of lauren's safety. currently living in a home without proper reinforcement and this is a seismic retrofit project and hate to see this further delayed. i would expect that if the appeals are granted and permits are not up held we will be back before you with another appeal and that further delay the work that lauren really needs to have done in interest of her own safety. in terms of the condition i are just mentioned, the condition recommended both by dbi and what i understand recommended by dbi and artect on the project john, it sounds to me that would address the prior work that was actually required by dbi in terms of backfilling the soil that was removed to do the exploratory work

so by providing that compaction report that could conform the soil is properly compacted back so that is something to consider that would address the prior work there is some concern about. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> my question is for mr. bets. mr. bets i heard you testify just now that or state not testify, i heard you state there was no issue with the permits as they were issued and is that correct view of your position? >> my understanding is the permits that requires work and scope of work don't have issues, the concerns i heard i believe is about what is done in the past and what may happen in the future. that is what-summarize what i said. >> how do you respond to the fact dbi came to the property

and ix issued notice of violation base said oen the fact work is done outside a scope of permit already issued? >> the permit per se being challenged are okay. there is questions about whether they complied with the authorized work. to remedy that we offer to do compaction reports. >> but a permit issued has to include by definition all of the work that is to be performed, is that-am i wrong somehow there? >> perhaps i'm not answering the question or misunderstanding. my issue is the actual appeal, the permits issued there is no prn with inpermit. the question challenged is what is done in response to the permits. therefore that is why we think the permits should be upheld. >> okay. thank you. >> you did raise a issue before about the agreement. if you want to see the agreement delighted to show the full scope of the agreement and revision to that. >> thank you, question

from president swig. >> mrs. monahan. ms. are you currently living full time in the home? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. okay. so we will now here from department of building inspection. mr. green, you have 6 minutes. >> thank you. i like to comment something about that i would have done under pinning. that was a general statement and not specific to this project. i didn't want to emply i referenced this specific project if i was the-that is not what i was try ing to say. in general it can be done. also there was allegation the work was covered it up. it was covered up we ordered them to back fill it because they excavated our inspector estimated

over 50 yards of soil and we asked them to backfill and get a permit to properly cover that scope of work, so the work was covered up but done by our order. the permit that they the second permit here reduced the scope of the excavation and less then 50 said yards which is a threshold and has to go to planning for ceqa evaluation. less then 50 yards it is not. the second permit as it stands now would not need to go to planning department for review and it didn't. i was saying if you do decide to uphold the two permits i like to add the compaction reports from the geo tech engineer and also recommend monitoring of the two adjacent properties to see if there is any movement. that would be a surveying

putting points and monitoring as the work goes on if there is movement we know it is a result of the work being done. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> i'm a little confused on one thing. we had public comment from the neighbor on the other side that said she got the notice of violation. >> yes. >> so, she got the notice of violation for doing nothing. so, how do we cure that problem which was created by her neighbor? how does that work? >> the unsafe condition on 150, 23 avenue was created by the work done at 146, 23 avenue. the notice of violation go to the property not the person doing the work. >> but who is the property

owner at 150 responsible for curing that notice of violation as caused by her next door neighbor? >> we issue-we call them a friendly nov. it is ammunition for any civil cases moving forward. they have documentation from the department of building inspection saying that their foundation was undermined. that is friendly nov. it documents there is a unsafe condition at the properties. we will not pursue code enforcement process. >> so, it is really up to-it isn't for this commission to deal with, but the advisory-i just-you have a neighbor who goes what just happened to me? i got hit by a truck and but i'm being given notice of violation after hit by a truck, how does that work? how does

she move forward? >> i would hope that the building inspector gave you the notice of violation would explain everything. i'm happy to talk after this meeting. >> please do. he can help you a lot. >> i'll stick around and we can discuss afterwards. >> thank you very much for that. so, in these cases we have seen many of them, it is generally unwise even though non compliant or illegal activities may have occurred, it is unwise to continue a situation where there might be risk to a neighbor on the other side and even the neighbor who may have perpetrated the illegal act, and so because all you are doing is

creating continuing a problem. so, what do we do tonight-what is your recommendation to do tonight to get what was supposed to be done in the first place legally, which was to fix the foundation while also protecting the interests of the neighbors on both sides? i like the monitoring idea. i like the city hiring or engaging engineer to look at both sides. actually i think that is a diligent move, and i also like the requirement that they may pay for it or may not that's not our purview, that the neighbor-the appellate have the right to engage their own engineer to go side by side if necessary with the

city engineer to be comfortable that all is okay. what else do we do to seal this wound and move this forward? >> i don't know i actually center have the authority to force the permit holder to allow the neighbors engineer on site. >> that is important to know. >> the building code allows me to access and dbi staff if there is concerns and they are willing-i don't know what the permit holder is willing to agree to. joint inspection with dbi engineer and private engineer. happy to accommodate if they are. i do recommend thinking about it during the hearing that you uphold both permits with the condition monitoring be placed on either

adjacent property and demanding the geo technical investigation and report about the work done prioring to proceeding. >> a report public information and shared with the next door neighbor on both sides? >> public information. >> anything else besides that? >> before work starts we want to start work inspection with the district inspector for what will happen going forward. >> i ask you basically to give the conditions as we move forward to resolve the situation, so i'm asking mrs. rosenberg of the potential conditions to resolve the case. >> taking notes but we still need to hear from- >> yeah, we are not there yet. just anticipating and becoming informed what's possible and not possible that i

found is not possible unless there's a willingness which i don't understand yet for a third party engineer to join the city engineer. that is why i asked the question. anything else that would-make the department comfortable and also make the appellate comfortable? >> that would make the department comfortable. i can't speak if that makes the appellate comfortable >> you heard the testimony. >> while reading the brief they were asking for the geo technical reports. >> then that will happen. alright. super. thank you. >> a follow-up to something president swig was just asking. if we uphold the permits with these conditions as you were talking about, and you did mention the condition of a dbi inspection occurring before work be allowed to resume, apart from that condition, would work otherwise be

permitted to begin again immediately after that inspection or is there some other waiting period or some other condition precedent that has to occur first? >> no, it is able to start-excavation is back from the property line, so the 30 day notification wouldn't be required. >> 30 day notification would be required? >> would not be required. >> okay. and then when dbi issued the order to do the back filling, was the back filling on both sides oboth property lines or just the 150 property line? >> the entire scope area so yes both. >> both. okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. don't see further questions. commissioners matter is submitted.

>> if we have a conversation that leads to our intent to sustain these permits with condition, do we find for the appellate and issue the permits with the following conditions? >> you grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition they be revised to require-- >> now you guys-any comments? alright. >> sorry, should have gathered my thoughts. i will let commissioner trasvina go first. >> thank you. i want to observe that while we have focused on the appellates at 142, i want to make

sure whatever remedies are provided are equally to 150 and i agree as a public interest none should live in a unsafe house, not lauren or the two neighbors, so the quicker all three can live in houses that have strong foundations, the better it is for each one individually for the neighborhood and for the city, so i like to as we fashion a remedy to make sure that that is the end goal and i'm concerned that the original work that we are need to establish the original work has not left either house neighboring house in worst shape then it was before and also whatever was done

on the current work. want to make sure that we get through quickly so the work can be done, inspections can be done and that all the both sides are secure and satisfied with their safety. >> taking into account what commissioner trasvina said which i think is very wise it is good framing to put this in and i think probably the only reason i wouldn't be recommending that we grant the appeals without any conditions. i think if we are to grant the appeal and then issue the permits with conditions, there's one additional condition i would like to impose in addition to what mr. green was saying which was the monitoring requirement, the geo

technical engineering reports and the inspection by dbi before work begins and the 4th condition i like to propose is that work cannot begin again before the end of 30 days even if inspection occurs because that is the period of time that both neighbors should have had from the very beginning to hire someone to underpin their properties, so i don't know when inspection will occur, it might be tomorrow, could be-it is all most christmas, so who knows what is happening with the holidays, and in fact now that i think about it st. it is december 14 today and everything shuts down for the holidays so might say 45 days rather then 30 because it is hard to get professionals out between christmas and new years, so that's my

suggestion and unless other commissioners have comments i would make that motion. >> i just like to ask dbi a question. when you go back and do the inspections, are you going to reinvestigate or investigate the illegal work? the work that was done prior to any permit being issued? and that was brought up by commissioner trasvina and it would be-what is-we want to make sure that inspections is take into consideration, yes the 2 permits even though one is under appeal, but both permits, but also most importantly the

initial metphorical car crash, that is the work done outside of a legal scope. would your inspections include the review of that or should we detail that as a condition in moving this forward? >> we still have active notice of violation to comply with the notice of violation. >> so that would be resolved in the notice of violation. >> correct. >> cool. okay. thanks. >> sure thing. i move to grant both appeals on the basis that the--there is two. >> we have two different permits. >> move to grant the appeal and-now i lost my train of thought. grant the appeal on the basis that both permits were improperly issued and condition the permits

what is- >> grant the appeal and issue the permits on the condition that they be revised to require- >> revised to require full geo technical engineers reports, monitoring requirements by dbi, full site inspection including inspections on illegal work done before any work begins and no work may begin prior to the expiration of 45 days from today's date. that's s my motion. >> (inaudible) >> yes. was there something i missed? i did say it. >> (inaudible) >> a geo technical engineer retained with

president swig's slight amendment there. >> i wanted to clarify couple things with dbi. mr. green. based on-is had it the site monitoring you said it would be required by dbi. wouldn't that burden be on the permit holder? >> yes, sorry. >> okay. the permit holder provides site monitoring and do you want to specify when that should be starting? >> i have- >> (inaudible) >> what is the recommendation of dbi? >> could we do the normal process of special condition permit that attach the-those requirements? >> i just want to clarify a couple points. one the site monitoring that would be the permit holder would be required to do that when the- >> correct. that is a normal requirement added to many- >> for both adjacent

properties and two, the dbi inspection is for the entire property both sides and would that be a dbi engineer who would be going out? would you still do the soils inspection or would this just be a regular inspection related to the nov? what do you recommend? i want clarty. >> i was recommended i have a dbi engineer go on site. is it possible to get agreement from permit holders they allow the neighbor engineer to accompany us? >> that would be a wundserful thij. i agree. i don't know if that coo part of a motion but can ask. is that the permit holders is that something you would be willing to do is allow that inspection? >> i'm speaking on behalf of lauren. i don't have particular objection to that. we already had their

engineer on the site, so we don't object to that. i do think the notion of waiting 45 days going contrary to the idea getting the work done as soon as possible, so i would be happy to have the engineer- >> that wasn't my question. wantsed had one question answered. >> great. >> so, we have the conditions are one, permit holder would-the question is when should the site monitoring begin? after the decision is issued which if there is no-there is 12 day period a party can request rehearing so the 13 day issue a written decision. at that point they-should we impose a deadline within the next-within 30 days of the decision or something? for site monitoring. the obligation on it permit holder- >> i might have the

problem of not understanding fully what site monitoring is? and it monitors the movement on the property so provides the benchmark to measure- >> can i recommend that the site monitoring be in place at the timef of the start work inspection? >> that sounds perfect. >> okay. perfect. site monitoring in place at the time of the dbi inspection. and inspection by dbi prior to work starting and engineer will be on site to investigate the entire property. and then we- >> start work inspection is something separate from our dbi engineer. i would recommend we go out with our dbi engineer and neighbor engineer and permit holder engineer and do that as response to the notice of violation and could

get that arranged early next weak. >> okay. >> lay that as a condition of the permit. >> because of the existing nov. okay. >> correct. >> okay. the other is permit holder provide a soil compaction or do a soil compaction test and share the reports. >> so moved by the time work is-i would say also by the time the dbi inspection occurs. >> can i make a clarification? the compaction is a result of our notice of violation, so i would hate for you to stop any the compaction work being done. that was a condition to comply with notice of violation. the work being done what we asked them to do is back fill the lot compact it

and then start all over. that work on these permits i would request the start work inspection. i still would like them to compact it now to comply with the notice of violation and so when they do start the work we know it is safe condition as the beginning of work. >> can i add work can continue only to remedy the conditions noted in the notice of violation? >> notice of violation was on one side of the property, right? (inaudible) >> no, we have notice of violation on 144. >> okay. >> there is ? >> sorry, we have notice of violation on the permit holder property. we have another wrun at the ajaisants property. we do not have one on the appellate property. >> do you want to specify the compaction work can-the compaction work has to be completed to dbi

satisfaction before other work is done on the property? >> yes. that sounds right. >> okay. i will try- >> thank you for working with me. >> this is messy. we have a motion to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that they be revised to require a dbi inspection prior to work starting. this would be full site inspection including dbi engineer and then also that the permit holder do site monitoring for both adjacent properties at the time on or before the dbi inspection. and- >> be in place. >> be in place on or before the time of dbi inspection. and then we have the requirement that the permit holder provide a soil compaction test and prepare that with the

soil engineer and share the reports. and lastly, that the compaction work be completed prior to the satisfaction of dbi prior to any other work performed on the property and this motion is made on the basis that- >> the permits were not properly issued. >> okay. or maybe they insure the safety of the site or- >> the latter is very good. >> that they-okay. sorry i thought that had (inaudible) >> insure the safety improve the safety conditions of the properties. okay. on that motion- >> qul y had a question. [microphone not on ]regarding the 45 day waiving period. is that part of this motion now? i didn't hear it

included. >> i don't think it is because we didn't want to delay the work and the whole point is to get the compaction work going, because it is a safety concern, and there is going to be time and they had notice of all these issues anyway. >> yeah, think my opinion changed on that during the course of what mr. green was saying as well. my concern was i wanted- >> i agree. we don't need to discuss it. if you withdraw it and didn't hear withdraw it. i heard mr. monahan raise legitimate objection and want to clarify it isn't part of the motion? >> correct. >> thank you. >> [unable to hear speaker] >> it will start. it will be in place that is what we are going to say. thank you. on that motion commissioner

eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0. >> what about commissioner trasvina? >> he already voted. >> okay. >> thank you and we have all the information. >> are we okay to move directly into trees or does anybody need a break? >> can we take 5 minutes? >> you want 5 minutes? can we be back 10 minutes of 9? >> we will recess for 5 minutes. thank you for your patience. >> welcome back to the december 14, 2022 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now on item 5. this is

appeal 22-079. joshua clip. subject property-401 parnassus avenue. appealing the issuanceon october 20, 2022, to ucsf, of a public works order (approval to remove 28 street trees with replacement; ucsf will demolish an existing hospital building and the new hospital building will require extensive health-care specific utilities which will require removal of the trees). order no. 207226. and as a preliminary matter commissioner eppler has a statement for the record. >> yes. in the past i served on the ucsf community aed visery grouped and stepped out of the role march this year. i discussed the city attorney and confirmed i do not have any conflict in this matter. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from the appellate. welcome mr. klipp, you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. i need a moment to bring up my screen.

>> just let me know when you ready. >> just a second alec. okay. sorry. here we go. good evening. the question tonight is whether the tree removal permit igued in error and standard of review is denova. this means the board owes no deference to prior decision made regarding the trees. this also means public works hano authority to assure ucsf is able to remove the trees before the end of the year. thederment

(inaudible) for construction. if a tree is reasonable condition removal is denied. (inaudible) >> if these were 3 trees in reasonable conditions our decision making here would be denial because we are not here to evaluate whatever construction may be taking place. our reason for approval are based on tree health, not whatever work is taking place on site. >> (inaudible) remove 28 trees identified (inaudible) [difficulty understanding speaker due to audio quality] the combined (inaudible) 45 feet. if you stack the trunks we are size of 4 story building. here is a brief timeline regarding the process and like to highlight dates. the department approved trees

for removal (inaudible) the removal (inaudible) october 5 the department reiterated the trees are not approved for reproval for construction. 15 days later (inaudible) based on construction. quick note san francisco has a small canopy of any major city enthe in the united states. our city (inaudible) half the number of street trees to keep up with the rate of removal. our climate action created response to the climate emergency declaration calls for 25 percent more street trees by 2040. fy22-23 the city set aside zero dollars for street tree planting. if the department ignorespologist and remove trees for construction it seems to get the maximum tree planting funds out of this the law allows. what does the law allow? if a tree removal permit is granted the department could require trees equivalent place in value to

(inaudible) are more valuable then handful of saplings keep wondering because it department did not conduct appraisal. a code section also required a tree for every 20 feet of property frontage during construction. ucsf acknowledge it is required to plant 28 trees but offers to only plant 14. noted thederment pacan modify or wave the (inaudible) ucsf says they will not know what the conflicts are until construction plans are (inaudible) ucsf seems to suggest (inaudible) they are not constructing a new building just constructing a new building. they want to cut 28 trees to do it. also propose to plant trees in surrounding neighborhoods. to date not a single planting site

is identified. they promise to ixue rfp and promised a planting partners introduced and november and here in december hoping to rush through the process to cut down everything before january. not only did the department grant master tree removal based on construction (inaudible) that doesn't exist. this imaginary plan, 56 baby trees for 22 large healthy ones sounds okay. in realty remove 531 inches of tree trunk diameter (inaudible) the climate action calls for policy putting as much tree as we take so so this imaginary plan will plant 80 percent of the trees then what is mandated. assert by the end of construction plant total of 85 trees. (inaudible) jump from (inaudible) to remove more trees for construction in a separate application that remains to be

adjudicated: last january the board approved by agreement with bart regarding tree removal and replacement which is all most a year and public works is yet to identify a site for the agreement. in 2019 the board upheld a tree removal permit for tes la (inaudible) 6 months. yesterday afternoon the department informed they planted trees in the tenderloin in august nearly 3 years (inaudible) ucsf offers the opinion based oen the construction plans the existing trees will not survive demolition and construction. since ucsf planned to build to the property line i suggest they didn't need a expert to tell them this. dr. clark opinion doesn't change permit issuance. the opinion is dated november 19. the department is dated october 20. the department could not

have relied on a opinion that didn't exist at the time of the decision. prior to the decision dr. clark 1997 coauthored article a model of early forest sustainability including the table managing urban trees. policy not enforced is low performance. that preservation required for projects is good performance. integrated planning for can vursation and development is optimal performance. if applied the own experts 24 year old opinion it is possible we couldn't be here tonight. in conclusion the permit on appeal is issued in error and must return. one, it violates department policy not removing trees for construction. two, fails to adequately apply the and rely on imaginary and unenforceable plan. thank you. >> okay. are you

finished? thank you. commissioner trasvina has a question. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation. i have 3 brief questions. first, mr. klipp you quote article 16, 806 (inaudible) regarding the requiring one tree for each 20 feet of street frontage of the property. is the your view that all of the replacement trees must be at the property or can they be anywhere? >> i think that would be a question better posed to department of public works since they are in charge of enforcing that law. >> i want to get your view because you seem to object to the number of trees that are going to be replaced on the site. >> sure. well, if

that is it requirement and there are conflicts it seems the lowest tree canopy in the united states should have other locations where those trees can be planted. the numbers should not be reduced- >> my second question is, and also ask this of the ucsf is that they describe the trees replacement trees are to be planted by local non profit volunteer partner. does that give you assurance that trees will be planted? >> i have been a volunteer (inaudible) friends of urban forest over 12 years. i is a lot of confidence in (inaudible) i do not share that confidence with the applicant in getting the work done with friends of urban forest. >> finally, if we grant your appeal what would you

-what alternative is there that you are proposing? >> my appeal seeks to overturn the permit which means the permit process needs to start over again however i think president swig has enough experience with me to know i am open to create innovative solutions. >> thank you. >> president swig. >> thank you. mr. klipp has always very solid and balanced presentation. i did full disclosure, i was equally as concerned as you were with regard to the "tesla tree" and did upon reading your brief contact buff and asked

them were your claim said true and they also told me they were late , they did plant the trees and i share your concern that they were late, but they did plant the trees. so, last week we closed our meeting with a solid presentation as well from mr. buck, and he talked about and i will ask mr. buck to address this question so i don'ts have to repeat myself and i believe he said when a tree is mature tree is replaced it has to be replaced based on a measurement of its trunk, because i think the question that was posed was yours coincidently

tonight, which is if you have all these magnificent trees and plants immature trees that doesn't quite match up to what was there in the first place. so, what would be in anticipation. i don't know what we will do tonight, never do. especially the tree stuff, but if some or all i don't know one tree were to be replaced similar to those that you showed just now, to get a true replacement what in your view is the replacement tree ratio given that let's say those trees will be replaced with 36 inch box trees which seem to be the go-to

tree when replacement is done. how many trees would you say is appropriate to replace the mature trees that are being asked to be removed? >> i think the best gauge for that is what laid out in the climate action plan so i refer back to that and i think chris is an arborist and can talk what does that mandate in the city climate action plan mean. i differ that deaf definition of the meaning behind the mandate means from a arborist perspective to answer your question. >> last week and will ask him to address this, he said well, and i may have gotten this wrong chris so sorry for bad paraphrasing but look at the girth of the tree and

thren replace it with a number of trees with estimated like girth. sorry for probably botching that, but how do you go about that if you have a mature tree like we saw, do you put in-is that 3 to 1 ratio, 4 to 1 ratio or what? i'm asking your opinion and asking at the same time mr. buck to address it during his testimony. >> my understanding is the word (inaudible) refers to stem and in this instance the stem of the plant is the trunk so if you take out a tree that is 20 inches in diameter and again i'm not a arborist so correct if i'm wrong but that is what the dictionary says basil stands for. if you take out a tree that is 20 inches diameter and replace with 10 trees that are 2 inches in diameter to equal 20 inches. >> that would be your idea of minimum standard if

any trees in this case are replaced, correct? >> that is what the climate action plan calls for and i agree with that. >> great. thanks. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from ucsf. mr. (inaudible) will you be presenting? you are on mute. >> yes. i will let christine speak first and i'll speak after. >> okay. thank you. >> get my screen up. everyone see that? >> yes. >> okay. hi, good afternoon or good evening. my name is christine buckley a director on the hospital project. wanted to give a little

background of just why we are doing this and give a little background about the new hospital (inaudible) we are needing to build a new hospital to meet our state mandated (inaudible) and also to increase our bed capacity to meet the growing needs of patients. that's the genesis of the project. there is facts here a number of beds and programs but won't get into that. i wanted to highlight about our community process. we did start that process in july, 2018 and reviewed our plans and what you will see later in the presentation and included comments about our eir. the street tree removal is contemplated and part of the eir which is approved as of may 2022 and our project is fully funded through the (inaudible). background of the

(inaudible) the new hospital is located right next to the existing hospital parnassus. we are constrained to the east of the side but (inaudible) and our intention is make one hospital to have connections of basements and other levels so the new hospital is connected to the current hospital, so as you can see we are constrained on the site so wanted to highlight that. i was going to turn it over to mark and he can talk more about the actual trees. i'll pause on this in case you have anything else to add on this slide. >> thank you christine. yes, i think we can go to the next slide. so, we are going to see the same tree that we just saw

and those are just a section of a number of trees. the biggest one that we have to remove. you can see the locations like just (inaudible) that we have (inaudible) next slide. so, as christine talks about, we design (inaudible) and we need to do the [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] 300 bed so every square inch is important to us. at it same time during construction we also have to keep everything going in basically a campus and (inaudible) coming in

and going during construction. as you see, (inaudible) and it will go through the building itself just for a small period of time. the construction is going to 10 year s, so that is why when we look at the trees we knew that most likely there (inaudible). there is just not-especially for the duration of the (inaudible) which will take 10 years, so, there is no way we will be able to protect the trees (inaudible) and size of the building and (inaudible) also i want to add also that some of the spaces of the trees and we see like the cypresses actually (inaudible)

don't do well in construction. (inaudible) we talk about it street trees, we are going to be adding (inaudible) in the street that we already know that is going to be (inaudible) and also there is additional trees that is 9 trees on the (inaudible) as you saw in the picture. we also going to add

trees on the (inaudible) access to patients and also public. those trees (inaudible) really just want to replace (inaudible) which is (inaudible) there isn't a lot of room to put the trees in the street. the reason we know because of (inaudible) and most likely there is all these regulation where you can put a tree, how far it has to be (inaudible) so you can imagine the whole sidewalk is going to get demoed so everything will be new so that is a reason we talk about 14 street

trees. that is the number that we were confident and will be able to put in. we could not put all the trees we wanted to plant (inaudible) there is not enough room so why we want to engage with the neighbor and (inaudible) >> 30 seconds. >> sorry. >> you have 30 seconds left. >> okay. so we (inaudible) that is something they were willing to let us plant trees for them around the community. we move to the next slide, please. they actually decided

where the they wanted us to plant trees. >> thank you. that's time. >> >> thank you, you have more time in rebuttal. your time is up but we have a couple questions for you. president swig then commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. i'm going to ask before i ask my question i'm going to preamble, but mr. klipp, could you put up that slide that showed the ucsf professional who had to do a very right and how to do it kind of right and not right at all? sorry going back to another speaker but he had such a good slide. can we get that up alec? so, while we

are seeing if that is possible. first of all, speaking for myself i respect ucsf tremendously and the contributions made to the city of san francisco and making it a center of world center of health care literally a world center of health care and benefit our community so tremendously. the commitment of time capital and to improve those already good services is very much appreciated. i think myself and our community in general and we appreciate that and respect that tremendously. so, if we give you a hard time it has nothing to do with any disrespect for your

project or the organization i hold in highest esteem and so does my 92 old mother who's life was saved in that very building and i appreciate that. we have this slide in front of us a model of urban forest sustainable application of cities in the united states and this came from one of your guys and what bothers me here is we have experience on this commission where it is trees as a after-thought. or the last thing that we worry about is trees. this is what we see a lot. not how the commission feels it is what we are presented with. i think the beginning of the year there was a really wonderful housing project that is out in

where julie? julie. what was the project-sunnydale. there was a great housing project in sunnydale and it was presented it was wonderful, marfb marvelous, we have to kill amazing-how old were the trees? hundred years old. pretty mature. the question at hand and same question here, you all were building this marvelous buildsing with this justifiable view which may be considered myopic and i render the same opinion here, and then as a after-thought we have to kill these 40 year old

trees. unfortunately the commission from my view the commission agreed that they had to be taken out. why with your own advisor create this model of urban forest sustainability, why do i get the feeling everything was about the building, everything is about your new development and then as a after thought by the way, we got to kill all these trees? and then also, why we are here in december and there is the-we didn't have the statement today, but it seems to be the implication that man we got to get going on this development real fast and got to take care of the trees and remove them very very fast. why was there not more intention and conscious effort to

sustain these trees and to design around these trees? just out of interest because it happens all the time. does somebody want to address that? >> we got cut off a little bit on the slides. but we were going to show the original concepts which included park to peak initiative, so josh mentioned that we added a number of trees to our brief. the fact is we always had trees planned on our property so there is a section on it builting of the beis 6 floor that making that a green and public space, so it wasn't we added trees we always contemplated having the trees we didn't feel it was right to-(inaudible) because we were focus on what we could do for street tree jz where

the initiative came up and agree it is unfortunate we have to do this. the trees if you look at those, a lot straddle the property line and so it is very difficult in that spot and so that's why we came up doing 1 to 1, twee do it 2 to 1 and get back into the community. he acknowledged there is (inaudible) and so it isn't necessarily feasible to put 56 trees in front of parnassus but we are doing that as part of the initiative (inaudible) the timing, i think that has to do with the wanting to get the eir approved and submitting the applications. i hope that ucsf is hundred percent transparents on the schedule that is my understanding as the community we met we explained when the demolition would be taking place so hope that was

part of the transparent process. >> are you aware that san francisco is down what 20 thousand trees chris? did i recall your-last week had mr. buck make a wonderful presentation about the state of trees in san francisco and what are the criteria about tearing out trees. we are armed and dangerous on the subject as a commission. the canopy is well below its potential or goal and at least 20 thousand trees short and so do you understand and what steps have ucsf done to recognize the fact that the canopy is 20thousand trees short and that the thought of 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 which

probably will amount again to the replacement of mature trees with 36 inch box trees which will talk a long lodge time to replace environmentally the positive environmental impact, do you have sensitivity around that and is there a better option in your mind or willingness from ucsf to expand the scope of replacement? >> i like morgan to talk about (inaudible) as far as trees. >> i can answer that. ucsf we are aware of the lack of canopy and also the lack of canopy (inaudible) of san francisco. so, that is one of the reasons that actually we wanted to do 2

to 1 and (inaudible) [difficulty understanding speaker due to audio quality]

>> thank you. commissioner lemberg. >> thank you for all your clarifications. couple question. one was just something i noticed in ucsf slides which regarded 3 years of health. it was clear what it meant in the slide so i wanted to clarify what that meant and just to make sure that the plan is not to only maintain the replacement trees for 3 years after they are planted. >> yeah. i can answer that. so, part of the plan for replanting the trees is not only just planting the trees, so the community based group is going to be connecting with the people. we already

did the (inaudible) there is still site work to do and so-to meet with the neighbors and some of the community collaboration work is going to be going on with that community group, and so the trees are going to be planted, pick and choose (inaudible) and so those trees will be maintained. (inaudible) it will be from the date of planting (inaudible) they will be watered and pruned when they need to be pruned. they will be fertilized and also if any reason during the 3 years they actually are damaged or they die or (inaudible) also we have a program to replace them.

after 3 years (inaudible) they fall back on the other (inaudible) that is why we set it up for 3 year plan and we know already with all the work been done that (inaudible) also want i add by (inaudible) we'll have to-won't be able to have a (inaudible) in that case we have to do a (inaudible) they won't have capacity to do that so the tree plantsing for the

street trees is (inaudible) why we decided to do (inaudible) contractor that will have to do the work. it isn't your community based small group that will be capable to do this kind of thing. that's--(inaudible) who will do it and why we pick those people to do it. (inaudible)

it doesn't mean we can't continue doing this and expand more and plant more trees as the project in the city (inaudible) we are going to be in construction for the (inaudible) we will be planting trees in the future. we are going to be moving (inaudible) thing s that are not here today. (inaudible)

>> follow-up question. i also recall that lot of these trees are supposed to be planted on the 6 or 8 floor, something like that of the actual building which i assume is being done as a privately owned public- >> yeah. >> forgot the acronym. i assume that the maintenance for those does not transfer to dpw after the end of 3 years, is that correct? >> yes. and those trees are not counted in the number of trees. (inaudible) the trees are in the hospital 6th floor and will be planting them. we have a team-design team. >> i just want to clarify that it is pornts important. the 56 trees are street

property not state property. we were asked the question about how we were contemplating greenery so why we brought up the trees we are doing on our property as well which we own and maintain in perpetuity. >> great. thank you. one more question, which and heard ucsf commitment to replant the street trees 2 for 1 of these trees that are being proposed to be removed. i might be projecting but possibly if this permit or this dpw decision is up hp held the street trees are for sure disappearing but think one of the concerns perhaps of the appellates and neighbors is accountability for ucsf replanting the 2 for 1 or great ratio then that. my question

is what accountability is built into the system in ucsf internal processes, in public facing ways the public can make sure that these things are happening. i think something mr. klipp stated to years going by after decisions even by the board of appeals and nothing happening for these years so i just want to hear what ucsf is going to do to mike sure not only ucsf stays accountable but to the neighbors at large. >> i can answer that. we dont have (inaudible) as soon as we have-with a contract because we involved with the non profit to (inaudible) we are going to be

doing (inaudible) and say that we to (inaudible) obviously it is on contract. rfp. so we are going to be forming that group to plant trees we will be working with them in case of difficulties. those are community based group, non profit. (inaudible) we know we probably are going to be working with them on all these (inaudible) it isn't that easy to do this. i think we also like for example just give a example because (inaudible) part of the contract. (inaudible) what we

can do make sure (inaudible) we can do more community base group and give updates where we are at all and how many trees are planted and what (inaudible) on this and that's the community is something we can do and we can put together to make sure that we plant the trees we say we are going to do and so the neighbors and everyone in the city can see we made a commitment and that we-this is something we want to do. >> i cant reiterate

enough that ucsf is hundred percent daing this. morgan stated our rfp is drafted and out in the community now and we have every intention of doing this and already communicated that with the community and our word is important within san francisco. >> thank you. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you and it's unfortunate you are not here in the room with us tonight because our sound system is not of the highest quality apparently and all most every line i see on the text on the screen is inaudible so i apologize in advance for asking you questions which you may have already answered, i just did not hear. on the issue of the plans, i hear your commitments, i hear

intentions, i can't equate more ucsf with good health and a great deal of trust goes into this, but can you tell me, have you identified the locations of the replacement trees? >> yes. so, we did some work at the beginning to see what locations were available and so (inaudible) to see what (inaudible) have to be checked on site. we just put a sample in the brief as attachment but we have more of them. (inaudible) to figure it out. >> do you know where the i guess 56 or 39 non

ucsf trees are going to go? >> we have the list and (inaudible) community group they are going to be walking with our neighbor and connected with them and verifying that those tree (inaudible) are connected to (inaudible) and so they will make the connections. and so if there is some of the (inaudible) are not available for any reason, so- >> so you don't have a location set? >> we do-- >> (inaudible) may or may not be available. >> morgan let me- >> we have locations, but they still (inaudible) we have to do. also, we have to make sure that we have the tree permits and tree (inaudible) and have to be sent to that. >> so you can't say

tonight where the trees are going to go? >> [multiple speakers >> we have general location where we put them what neighborhoods. >> that is fine. >> as part of the rfp we have a list of empty wells that that group the local group will help us identify which ones are available so that is part of that process. >> okay. and, what is your deadline to have the trees in place? >> we are aiming to do as soon as possible. so it is through rfp process and little slow because of december so haven't gotten responses so doing outreach and once they are on board we will move as quickly as possible so think morgan feels confident we have in no later then summer, aiming for spring. >> thank you. one last question is, what are

the consequence-we know that if we -a favorable decision for ucsf means killing 28 trees. and 22 of which are currently healthy. what is the consequences if we do not allow you to remove the trees? >> the consequences to not remove the trees, so i think it's--i don't know all the details because i'm an arborist. some of the questions related to construction and planning and things like that that is already in progress, and process with the city and couny countee county of

san francisco. (inaudible) of the trees of the health because when we talk benefit of trees it is also benefit related to people, and (inaudible) promoting the benefits of people. so, it is very complex and difficult decision. >> it is hard to answer that because as i mentioned a lot of it trees straddle both properties, and so the question would we move on with correction and just kill the trees inadvertently or postpone our construction and redesign? >> yes. that's what i expect to have a answer. somebody in the governmental relation office ought to be able to tell us, this is so important

it will have these consequence to this important new important hospital. it will take great time or no place to put the trees or sacrifice ambulance space or bed space or something. we hear stories about the canopy and trees. at this points we are talking less then 1/10 of percent of the gap. what i look for is what the compelling need on the other side and giving you a opportunity to describe what the impact to your construction is. >> commissioner if i may (inaudible) land use counsel for ucsf and worked on environmental impact reports for the comprehensive parnassus plan and new hospital eir and so this hospital designed is

worked on for past several years. initially it was the hospital was going to have a footprint that extended into the mount (inaudible) forest and would have removed trees. that is changed but i think there is a site plan put up earlier that the hospital will be between parnassus avenue and medical center way which is very narrow street running on the side-run between the (inaudible) forest and where it currently (inaudible) psychiatric institute and where the new hospital would go. along the hospital plan is a lot of work on parnassus that has been part of work with the city planning department, so last 10 years since-actually since 2014, including curb-cuts, new hospital entrance areas,

ambulance areas, staging areas all of which will occur along parnassus avenue but during construction which i think morgan said, currentsly scheduled to commence in next year and will be a 6 year construction process. the work area that is available is primarily along parnassus avenue, and a very narrow street on medical center way. the rest of the hospital site the new hospital site is surrounded by mof fet and long hospital. there is no way to access the site of demolition and construction, new utility and curb cut and ambulance and staging areas without working from parnassus avenue, so i think in answer to your question, it has been studied by the university and it would cause a serious problem to the building to stage and construct

this hospital if there is not access along parnassus avenue. >> that is very helpful. thank you. >> president swig. >> sure. i wanted to move to mr. buck, but i have a burning question. i need clarification. the rfp to replace the-i heard couple things and again, mr. trasvina is right. one of the disabilitiess created for us is especially-(inaudible) am i butchering it? sorry. somebody with a heavy accent which i don't fault you for having but when it comes the internet and lousy sound system is hard to hare you and get every word. please excuse if i didn't hear something. one thing i did hear was that there was the intention of

doing rfp to replant the trees but i also heard because mr. klipp commented on it, that it was going to be friends of the urban forest were going to be the community organization doing it. how much are you spending on the hospital? how many billion? has to be billion, right? no, no, no. maybe mr. olson can-- >> president swig, the estimated construction cost for the hospital is several billion dollar. >> exactly so we are talking on 2 to 1 basis and i would advocate it should be more and will bring that up to mr. buck, but on a 4 to 1 basis on the 10 to 1 basis, to have a professional organization that has assurety to put in 36 or 42 inch boxes in a

multi-10s of billions of dollar program i understand why are you going to friends of urban forests as not for profit i understand your rfp is going. this is penny wise, found foolish. it shows-just doesn't show the same priority-you are not go toog a community base organization to build your hospital, so why this rfp as i am interpreting is going to community base organizations, i love friends of the urban forest but hire a professional organization that can heavy left and do the job? am i off base here? would you repeat how this replacement process will go and who will do it or did i say the right thing? >> i can repeat that. i'll speak slowly to make

sure everybody understand me. the rfp is in process. (inaudible) friends of urban forest is (inaudible) organizations on the lease of the rfp. why ucsf is going to a non profit is because we-the way we have been doing with (inaudible) we supporting the (inaudible) it is a reason we think to plant trees down in the neighborhood (inaudible)

non profit organization. there is multiple non profit organizations, there is (inaudible) in the city and county of san francisco that offer it. that is why we are (inaudible) to help our community. (inaudible) non profit or community grassroots that needs funding to plant more trees in the city. (inaudible) to plant trees is not (inaudible) >> i'm really sorry, your last 50 words i have no idea what you said. it is just really

getting difficult. it goes to the root of my question and the root of my question is, if you identify-i will through out a number, 40 empty street tree-what do you call them chris? tree basins, thank you. and throughout the city of san francisco to locate new trees, and you sends friends of urban forest volunteers to replant 36 inch box trees in these locations, this is not planting trees along a trail. i understand what you are saying. if i were planting trees along the trail i would call friends of the urban fostest and do a outing but this is serious stuff. i don't understand and ask you again to why

this direction when you are contemplating going out and placing replacement trees of a sizable nature to replace mature full growth trees, why are you going the trail route versus a professional route when it comes to treeess in san francisco which to my life is very important. ucsf maybe so much. but my life and fellow citizens very important. why? >> i just answered earlier. the reason why we are going for (inaudible) to plant trees in the city is because (inaudible) plant new trees in the city. especially using a non profit. we are using a non profit because we know they can handle the 15 gallons size trees. and so, we are going to

(inaudible) >> you're not answering my question cooperatively. you are choodsing to continue your montra. wewill do 50. this is what non profits can handle and what i'm telling you is if we go in the direction to mandate 36 inch, 42 inch or much larger appropriate trees your direction is failed. we are on opposite wave links here. let's move on because it is getting late, we are tired and mr. buck is waiting patiently. >> briefly to ask a question president swig, might it be appropriate given the sound system to continue this to a later date to allow all the sides to be here and to have ucsf reflect upon the various concerns that they

have heard tonight from you and my colleagues to come up with either more complete answers and perhaps alternatives plans on the tree replacement issue? procedurally is that something that can be done? >> procedurally i would suggest that we finish the hearing. we let mr. buck speak, we hear public comment. we go for the rebuttal and then if you feel the same way at the end of that time, i would be right by your side. >> thank you. >> let's go tochris. >> thank you. >> evening commissioners. chris buck public works bureau urban fortry is and before i start i wanted to say, i really do respect mr. klipp josh klipp the appellate in the

case. i respect his advocacy, he has a effective and real advocate for urban forest and want to start off acknowledging that and respecting that. so, with that, i have just prepared statement i will read through it and keep me as concise as possible. public works urban forestry received tree permit application from ucsf parnassus heights unithis year after the planning commission and uc region approved the rks am ou the project proposed and the final environmental impact report eir. the opportunities to advocate the 28 trees remain would have occurred during the public outreach process by ucsf to surrounding community and during the publicly available eir public comment period. had our bureau been involved when

building design was to be determined the staff level recommendation would have fallowed the general policy to redeny request to remove the trees if helty and sustainable. it also helps the project is not already approved. when inapplication received and we researched the status of the projects approval we reached to chelsy fortm the senior planning department staff member and environmental to confirm the project obtained all necessary approvals and street tree removal contemplated and discussed. the goal was to learn if the public had been involved with reviewing the project as proposed. the answer is that yes, ucsf parnassus heights conducted extensive outreach about the project to the community and this is well documented in all the project reports and specifically within the ucsf comp rehensive plan mou and chp final environmental impact report. only

reviewing and understanding these pornts project approval milestones did the bureau concede the opportunity to advocate the trees be retained and project redesigned to accommodate the trees had past. we share mr. klipps frustration. the city declared a climate emergency and are many subject trees are very large monterey cypress trees not considered for retention as part of the project. i go into other things but the timeline. i don'ts want to get-i respect mr. klipp brief. there is no intention to speed the process up. we delayed the hearing process by a month through scheduling through no one fault of their own so didn't speed it up but let me cut through that. the appellate did suggest there is fast tracking but again there was no fast tracking and in fact we delayed a hearing by a month. and then there was also no

specific resulting decision promised in e-mails, this fsh very basic typical communication with folks who have large project and a lot of people to answer to. the applicant agreed to plant replacement trees on 2 for 1 ratio. the existing trees proposed are much larger and provide greater benefit but the proposal allows more trees planted in the city with high number of trees compared to other neighborhoods. (inaudible) far greater needs exist in the southeast and western neighborhood. ucsf committed to plant the trees in 2023 bup butt but the project will take 6 years.

ahead in my neutral opinion on that so that's just additional feedback i wanted to provide. the details of the parnassus permit will not be known for at least 3 years due to the planning required for utility approval. the proposal is remove 28 street trees and replace 14 along the same frontage and 42 in the neighboring community. the trees in the neighboring community would be planted in 2023 and street plans planted adjacent to parnassus occur in 20 (inaudible) we do not assess in lieu fees until the project is closer to completion and construction finalized. the applicant submitted a check list form for tree planting and protection and we

believe they will be subject to in lieu fees required to be paid for trees that can't be planted due to utility conflicts. this relates to the parts in mr. klipps brief. public works believes that approving the permit to remove 28 subject trees in the condition that they be planted on 2 to 1 ratio which exceeds the 1 for 1 requirement is reasonable. this will include the planting of approximately 14 trees in the parnassus frontage and 42 trees thin surroundic neighborhood next year in 2023. public works assume maintenance responsibility for the trees after the 3 year establishment period. we believe we are applying the code in a reasonable way and getting more trees then otherwise would and ucsf commitment to plant 42 trees in 20236 years ahead of construction is unprecedented. this is not inconsistent with what the code allows,

but i have heard the conversations about the placement tree value and appraisal and think that is likely where the conversation may continue to move. thank you. just to reiterate, public works is asking at this point in time that the appeal be denied and permit issued but again i appreciate the conversation. sorry taking place prior to me reading my statement this evening. thank you. >> last week you made a point that when it comes to mature trees that are not decayed and healthy that they are super highly protected and you got to-better be a pretty good reason why we are going to tear them out. and also

you stated that they are 20 thousand trees short in the san francisco canopy and 20thousand trees is not only a beautification but a environmental issue. trees make oxygen, trees take away bad stuff from the air, blah blah blah blah blah. all good things all positive. so, in this case and thirdly you said when-in the case of mature tree, the replacement trees are based on the girth of the tree and the replacement-number of replacement trees are measureed according to the replacement of the size of the tree. so, we have these mature cypress--the same thing in sunnydale and had it done before that the tree dies oops sorry we

couldn't have planned around it and didn't think of that. that is it the whoel thing. you want to replace the canopy, you want to replace the tree girth with a equal impacted tree. one, why 2 to 1, why not 3 to 1, why not 4 to 1? i know the standard is 1 to 1 but that is 1 to 1 when you replace tiny street trees not mature majestic--friends of urban forest a not for profit potentially who only have capacity to install miner trees. why not the requirement to replace them as we do in commercial locations with 32? with 36, 42 inch box et cetera? close to mature as reasonable and you have given me

instruction in the past on why you can't replace gigantic trees and speed the plow so it is 3 6 or 42. why a not for profit can handle a 50 gallon tree, what is that about? the goal is to replace like kind with like kind and replenish the environment. final question, why is it restricted to parnassus heights? why is the restriction just to parnassus? if you run out of trees plant then in my neighborhood or john's neighborhood or jr neighborhood. we got empty basins there i'm sure. i don't understand why it is 2 to 1, i don't understand why the restriction to 50 gallon instead of 36 or 42. i don't

understand why it is only restricted to a neighborhood, and why it is being left to a not for profit who is not capable of heavy lifting necessary to plant a 36 or 42, can you explain that stuff in the context of multi-10 of billion dollar development? it is chump change? >> thank you commissioner. i appreciate the comments of all commissioners to both the appellate and the applicant prior to me coming up hereof. i have been listening closely where the conversation has been going. so, i think i don't know the exact genesis of the community urban forest recommendation. it could have come up in public outreach during that outreach to the community and could have been suggested by local neighborhood advocates that hey, can you replace these with

friends of urban forest, that would be a great thing. there may be a practical reason beyond what morgan from ucsf was pointing out. could have evolved during a community process. one thing i do want to admit to having there be question regarding replacement value. historically when a tree is removed but can't be replaced say for a garage, there is existing tree, someone wants to install a garage and remove without replacement. we assess the appraised value for the loss of that tree. very straight forward. we lose that tree. we were not able to require replacement as well. it was referred to as double dipping so it was like if it can't be replanted we go appraised value. in the code

planting and removal by persons other then the department it does say that the city grants a tree remove permit require replacement of equivalent value be planted in place of removed tree or in lieu fee unless finding for basis for waiving. typically we previous only until a few years ago-couldn't mandate people plant trees across the city because the property owners were responsible. that hurdle is lifted. a few years at phrrks sf general there appeal and the appellate requested either ucsf or sf general depending how you look at the lease agreement require 15 additional trees to be planted in surrounding

neighborhood. that is beyond what the code require but we agree because we can man tain the trees after the 3 year establishments has been completed. what is challenging about replacement value, it is very difficult to plant very large trees in a urban environment so very often when we require a replacement as occurring here we are not doing the appraised value because they are replacing it. there is question as to well, can we if they replanting 24 inch box tree can we do the difference? okay, subtract the cost of 24 inch box tree and get $20 thousand for that much larger tree or $35 thousand. i did consult with a advice attorney with public works today. having review mr. klipps brief to understand how to apply in the case. there are several cases at public works where applicants have gone above and

beyond what is required. that can be confusing because that is thought that (inaudible) to get back answering the question why 2 to 1, before a few years ago the 2 to 1 wasn't possible. we have it written in the code a applicant is required to plant replacement value and that can be done 2 waysm. one is basal the appraised landscape value of a tree. we have not conduct landscape value of subject trees. the diameter equivalent is 531 inches. 24 inch box trees are approximately 1.5 inches in diameter. that would be 354, 24 inch box trees. i bring this up because this isn't in the decision but had a feeling this is where the conversation may lead. how we get

there is another question. so regarding why things are restricted to parnassus height, we rather have replacement trees. unsure how to apply the section of our permit if someone is replacing how you get appraised value but logistics of planting large trees in a urban virelt environment is challenging. it isn't apple park where you can plop where you wish. that is regarding 2 to 1 replacement. that came up in this process was you need to do more then 1 for 1 so in the hearing process the 2 for 1 was proposed. we recognize it doesn't come close to reaching the appraised value of-replacement value of the trees. the replacement trees can be expanded beyond that immediate neighborhood

and no way am i belittle the neighborhood. they have more street trees then most neighborhoods. i think i answered those three questions and just try to provide more context on what our code can potentially require. >> i think the final question was, not for profit using the use of not for profit that are only capable of putting in 50 gallon trees versus what the real true need is and you just said, from a replacement tree stand opponent, 2 to 1. replacement from appraised value, the math was significantly higher then 2 to 1. what is the wisdom of other then it feels good, other then it is nice to not for profit. i love not for profit. nothing against them, but if it

inhibits of compromise the quality of life for the 850 thousand residents of the city of san francisco because their air is less pure then before they tear out those trees hey, we can take care of the not for profits in a different fashion related to the tree canopy. give me a comment on that. >> sure, regarding community based urban forsty there is a lot of value and show owners engaged in planting trees are more apt to keep an eye on them and care for them. with that said, i think the perception is value added. i don't-again as we talk through this permit application rnsh i don't see limiting factor. perhaps can

can be complementary if there is some other recommendation the commission goes in. but it's-i perceived it as a very positive thing showing how dialed in and committed to replacement they are so my feeling i think (inaudible) it is one of trust and there is a rfp and i literally did a double take when i say they are going to plant these in 2023, not 2029 and think that shed be acknowledged. that is pretty amazing. you might argue what are you doing for 6 years? you mine as well get busy so agree with that. there is pros, but it hasn't been mandated per se, it st. the plan that seemed to evolve with ucs f. i wouldent that is holding back the replacement size rirementd, it is just the way the mitigations evolved and praprosed in the process. >> is there a potential hybrid compromise with 2 to 1

replacement plus a cash donation to the city of san francisco for the purpose of planting street trees to mitigate the loss of the mature trees and to approach the appraised value, what you know is appraised values of those trees? you don't know the number, but you know it is hell of a lot bigger then a 2 to 1 replacement. >> correct commissioner. i hear the feedback that commissioners inquired about both replacement value, both either as straight diameter equivalent replacement or the appraised value defined in our code. that wasn't part of the resulting recommendation, but it is something that we can do as a exercise as a comparison point is appraised value of those existing trees, and then the data i just gave

you, 531 diameter is adding up all the diameters of the existing trees if there a few that need to be removed the value is zero but a high number, well in the 500 range. hybrid is a possibility. i don't think that that-who plants the replacement trees is a very specific permit requirement that we are opposed to changing or altering in any way, but again a trusted community partner, there is a rfp and i heard it said several times it is still not issued. there is a process they need to follow. it could be a non profit similar to an organization like friends of urban forest. >> thank you. commissioner lemberg. >> i want to clarification. we talk about appraised value. are we talking appraised monetary value how much a tree is wurthd?

>> correct the guide determine value on trees. there are several ways to do it. one way no one wants to do it is real estate value. you can't do that unless in central valley. everything here is expensive regardless you have a tree in front of the home. based on specious condition of the tree placement if it in a great placement higher rating. terrible location it creates a lot of problems it is rated lower value, but yes, there is a establish said appraisal process. it is established in our definitions and code. we typically employed when removal without replacement but as a exercise it could be done to understand what that would be for the 28 subject trees. >> okay. okay. i want to go back to the 3 year

maintenance. to me it just doesn't make a lot of sense for ucsf to agree to maintain trees for 3 years when they are by their own admission about to start a construction project that is going to take 10 or more years. so, they are going to plant these trees and assuming they plant them in 2023 as they say are going to, we then you know are in 2026 and we have 5 more years of construction to go, that potentially could still significantly impact the trees that were just planted. what are your thoughts and opinions about the length of time ucsf should maintain the trees knowing there is ongoing construction? >> i understand where your questioning on this. the 3 year period just in

general is a established period of time that takes to establish a young street tree. you plant the tree and water once a week for 3 years and after 3 years it developed a root system it no longer needs supplemental water. it is established. it still might be a little smaller. at a minimum we require that anyone who plants a street tree in public right of way not planted by us commit to 3 year maintenance period so that is where 3 years come in. after 3 year it reverts maintained by public works. these trees aret noplanted in arms way. these are planted on different facing blocks, not likely to be damaged in any way during construction. that is more about where the 3 year comes from. it basically helps us get trees established in the city that we assume responsibility for once they are established. >> very helpful.

thank you. and then i heard with great interest your number of 354 box trees to replace the girth or whatever terms we are using here which i did a quick calculation that is between 12 and 13 to 1 rather then the 2 to 1 thing. i also heard you say and i understand this-very familiar with the neighborhood around ucsf parnassus but it isn't the neighborhood in most need of street trees in the city especially considering it is completely adjacent to mount (inaudible) which is basically one of our only urban green belt areas. you also stated it is possible to mandate trees going into other neighborhoods that might be in greater need of street trees so my

question for you is what neighborhood s are most need of street trees, >> in the southeast, bayview, visitation value, excelsior, outer mission, portola, crocker amazon, district 1 and 4 so the avenue, sunset and richmond. it is kind of center of the city is pretty well planted out. higher number of trees per block. those are broadly-the tenderloin and south of market are in need great need of tree planting. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. trasvina. >> thank you for your presentation. can you explain or elaborate why it is laud tore for ucsf to plant the 28

trees or whatever number of trees we are talking about in 2023 when they remove them in 2023 opposed to 2029 or 2030? >> i would see that (inaudible) hoping you might be able to explain that. >> sure, commissioner good question. so, typically when projects are occurring, it is all on the current site and you just dont want to put trees in harms way, so someone seeks to remove trees we may be successful protecting a few on site so you protect a few hopefully, you removed some, and there is no opportunity for replacement physically on that site. so, that is a case for the parnassus avenue frontagism no trees are going back there, they are taken land. it will be steam shovel in.

that is the typical scenario. it is highly unusual to have-just trying to think of other examples where anyone tried to plant mitigating trees in surrounding neighborhoods. we did that for zsfgh. we planted 15 trees a year early, the project isn't done yet and planted in march for arbor day this year. another example of us sticking to the conditions of a permit from board of appeals. so, it is laud tory. it does make sense. it makes common sense. the idea they are planting in 2023 right away and then the trees are growing for 6 years so the idea we will get a larger tree in the end by the time they are nearing completion, so that ties into like why 15 gallon or

24 inch box, why is it not profit. get the trees started now and that is still not coming to the true appraised value of the trees but it is certainly--it is commendable start towards trying to get that 1 for 1 true diameter replacement. >> thank you. >> okay. i don't see any questions so we'll move on to public comment. i see a few hands raised. irma lewis, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. >> okay. good evening commissioners. irma lewis. i want to start out by saying i support the construction of the new hospital and surrounding campus. i also assume that all parties have the best intentions and i am a member of the ucsf community advisory committee focused on than lands use. i think commissioner eppler

may have a conflict because the past 6 years he has been involved as a member of the 5 person leadership team for a ucsf investment in dog patch as a mitigation for land use development, and they gave this team $4.2 million in 2017. 5 years later this week they are discussing with ucsf whether this funding reverts back to ucsf as per the contract, or if this small leadership team will be allowed to move forward with more preplanning funding or if it will go back to the community for a pros. i don't want to take more time then that but $4.2 million

of $10 million investment. i respectfully request the appeal approve or decided on a continuance (inaudible) to close the large gap between dpw and community. why? i love-my hands are red from clapping during your questions. the ucsf and applicant brief is clear ucsf, dpw relied on representation and non bindsing agreement (inaudible) screening of the neighborhood was introduced-- >> thank you that is time. >> thank you. your time is up. we'll now hear from keh. please go ahead. you need to unmute. keh. >> okay. that is me. cathy howard. i urge you to support the appeal and overturn the permit. the existing mature trees provide shelter from the winds off the ocean. provide

major environmental benefits. new trees even if they survive will not provide wind protection or environmental benefits for many year. the best medicare in the world will not make up for the continued destruction of our environment. i like to mention the response to the appeal talks about open space reserve and states ucsf will improve the health of the reserve. the location is (inaudible) somehow balances out the proposed tree removal that is not the case. the mount (inaudible) open space reserve is ucsf responsibility and they made a commitment to protect it. protecting trees you are already supposed to protect does not give you the right to cut down other trees somewhere else. ucsf says they plant new trees in the spring and also promised years not to expand facilities on parnassus which since reversed.

if you decide tree removal please require large trees be planted immediately in the neighborhoods and as a condition for the construction going forward. ucsf should pay for. a small expense compared to the overall cost of $4.3 billion, not a couple billion. >> 30 second s. >> the rfp can be reissued. planting in the future will you be around doing forest planting? i think the safest thing is deny the permit and support this appeal. thank you. >> ocaimpt kay. now hear from john multi, please go ahead. go ahead please, john nulty you are muted. >> hi. i had a audio to present. video. >> okay, please go ahead. >> i have a video i sent you.

>> right, and alex told you could share it during zoom. >> right, but i don't see that i'm- >> we can promote you to panelist. can he share as attendee? alec? >> it is promoted. i just promoted him. >> okay. mr. nulty? you are now a panelist so you can share your video. please go ahead. we can't hear you. mr. nulty. >> can you hear me? >> yes, you can go ahead. >> okay, hold on. >> click on the button that says share screen.

>> share. okay. would you like alec to help you? >> yeah, isent him the video. >> last time he helped you were not satisfied how we helped you and why we told you to share it yourself. he is willing to help you again. >> thanks. it will be a moment. we are to irma lewis. you only had 2 minutes to speak so your time was up.

thank you. >> you prefer the audio off, correct? >> yeah, just leave the music off. >> okay, hold on. o okay, go ahead. >> these are the trees that are in question. as you can see they are mature trees. there is a couple issues i with what is going on here. we have multiple (inaudible) to the trees. this is against the code for posting of trees. these postings should have gone down per the code in 70 days they didn't. (inaudible) with

dpw, (inaudible) community. as you can see, these are very mature trees see how thick and big they are and it shows also where they are at currently on the campus and within the right of way. ucsf must have been the steward for mount (inaudible) given to the city to state by (inaudible) who was the mayor of san francisco. as you see some of these things that are here, you will see more white posting versus dpw postings, so that is (inaudible) supposed to post every tree, not- >> 30 second s.

>> not ucsf. lastly you see at the end currently ucsf is not watering their trees and this is what (inaudible) so you can see-lastly here you see the location of the project and they have all in the back here they can be using this site to access. >> thank you. that is time. >> thank you. ros arbell, you have 2 minutes. please go ahead. >> hi, there. i want to say that being someone who just recently had surgery life saving surgery through ucsf i do respect the institution, however i do have to say that the uc system has been notoriously horrible

defender of trees, especially in the bay area. ucsf is carrying on this tradition sorry guys, i just have to say this, (inaudible) in san francisco and now we are on to these particular trees. i want to think about how these trees enhance the experience of students and especially patients of the medical center. sapling can not replace the experience and not clean the air and provide shelter for birds and bees of course and i know you heard it again and bears repeating san francisco has the worst urban canopy of any major u.s. city and you know, listening for quite a long time now representives from ucsf talking about their plans, it doesn't seem to be very concrete and i am just

kind of baffled. this does seem to be one of those plain old environmentally and sensitive tree removals. these trees are- >> 30 seconds. >> yes. save the trees. that is all i have to say. uphold the appeal. >> thank you. we will now hear from michael nulty. please go ahead. >> hi. my name is michael nulty a native san franciscans and (inaudible) more trees being removed in san francisco: i like to deny the permits and up hold the appeal. i also want to say that you know, ucsf needs to be good stewards to all the things they do in san francisco. sure we need a new hospital but it is mandated on you. the trees have no say in

this. the trees have been there for many years, and

>> business, i think that this could be something that could be nationally, a national model for a medical center and how it perceives itself and its natural environment and how it cooperates with the

city in terms of raising the bar on environmental concerns. that's what i have to say. thank you. >> okay, thank you. any further public comment? i dont see any so move to rebuttal. mr. klipp, you have 3 minutes. >> yeah, i want to thank the members of the pubplic who waited 5 and a half hours for 2 minutes. soma has 4 percent after that district 4 and after that (inaudible) i didn't say this process was sped up, i said public works doesn't have the authority to let the applicant know the desire to take down the trees (inaudible) regarding compelling need to start a year ago bart came before the board and said the same thing and you continued that hearing in order to have time to reach a better

result. ucsf had years on the project and could have but a rfp in september and they don't have a scope for the rfp and haven't put a deadline since they don't have one tonight so don't see how anything is done in the year. it can take at least a year to put together planting and that when there is money and there is question who takes care of the trees. all these numbers here showing these are the screen shots and numbers thrown out and these matter because this is what the permit is conditioned on. this is what the permit is conditioned on. if every square inch matters the same should matter for the trees. just a ement moment. you heard i was thinking this was 2 inch diameter but talking 15 gallon trees. that is even

smaller. i don't doubt it best intentions but numbers don't lie and these are self-reported tree planting numbers. once the job nob nab there is no enforcement mechanism. we have a permit issued against what we have been told is departmental policy relying on a plan at best stated at the hearing on the best of intentions about meshable standsards which seem to violate the code the climate action plan and urban forest plan so respect the permit deny because issued in error and agree to continuance to discuss a more favorable and mutual result. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from ucsf. you have 3 minutes in rebuttal. does someone from ucsf want to address it board? >> charles, do you

have anything that-- >> yeah are, i would just say a few things here in response to questions. christine can speak to this as to where the trees are replanted, i believe that the suggestion that they be replanted in the parnassus area came from community meetings and long engagement with the community. i'll leave to decide if that was the right place but the result of long dialogue with the community. just to clarify, the construction schedule for the hospital itself would be from 2023 to 2029 and as mr. buck said, the replasment trees on parnassus would not be replaced until the construction was completed. the maintenance-tree maintenance for those trees commence once the trees are replaced

there. the other trees planted in 2023 that maintenance requirement would kick in immediately at that time. christine, i dont know if you can speak to the community process at all. >> that was a good summary. how we got here was based on community input and so i appreciate hearing everyone else input as well. like i said it i was trying to take it all in. we are--i am concerned that people feel that we haven't been clear in our process. we have been throwing out a lot of numbers and wasn't our intent to be unclear. we are committed to the 14 trees enfront of the property. i understand the concern that we may or my not be able to get that many and the fact is we actually have every intention getting more. we went conservative because we confident that is minimum we can do in front of the hospital. if we can

do more we will absolutely do more. again as charles mentioned earlier to build the hospital it is unfortunately and want to support the city's desire for the street trees, but to do this hospital and location and our seismic needs is a requirement to remove these trees. we are trying to figure how to make that better by doing trees in front of the property but also by doing trees out in the community. our understanding was it 1 to 1 requirement and so we were-to do better then that as proposing to do 2 to 1. this was the precedent set (inaudible) and so we were following that commitment which we thought was appropriate. >> one last thing on the data provided by mr. klipp. the trees removed from mount (inaudible) were dead and dying trees. it is part of

the overall plan so misleading to suggest ucsf killed off those trees. those trees were dead- >> that is time. >> thank you. commissioner eppler has a egz question. >> just clarty on the community meetings that lead to focus on the parnassus heights area for replanting. where did those community meetings take place and what was the scope of the meetings? >> well, we had two processes for community meetings. one was the overall plan and that was outreach to neighbors through the cag and other systems so that was in 2018. we kicked off very specific tree removal and replacement community meetings and again that fsh done through the cgr group through e-mails, list serves, web sites, trying to get the word as much as possible and invited

everyone to attend. we had rounds of meetsings and surveys through e-mails. does that answer your question? >> yes, let me ask a different way. safe to say most 06 that outreach was centered around parnassus heights neighborhood? >> i think those are fair assessment knowing those are the neighbors and most vocal. >> would the university if it planted more trees consider planting in different parts of the city with less tree coverage? >> again, i hate to speak for the university. i am just-i would think so. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from (inaudible) anything further? >> chris buck with public works. just pointing out the 14 trees to be planted

along the parnassus frontage is very obvious place where larger box size can be planted when the project is at completion. but just listening closely to the feedback and appreciate everyone's time. thank you. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner, may i start? so, i like the commissioners feedback on what i heard versus maybe what you heard. what i heard and i must admit i am a little chip on it shoulder because i have been through this before where large projects build beautiful buildings, place priorities in brick and mortar infrastructure and all the things that make a great project and trees are after thought so i acknowledge my chip on my

shoulder. and so what i heard was all the years of planning that went into this beautiful hospital which i look forward to. somebody in my family will use it, maybe even me if i'm alive that long. but, again the priority here was to build a building and the environment-stated in public comment. it is a teaching hospital. they should teach the environment sensitivity which is good for health along with building a beautiful building. that is 1. number 2, there is no plan. we heard 2 for 1 replacement where the trees are going to go? put them in the neighborhood but there is no plan. so we will be subject to your a promise without a plan? and then we heard from there klipp, don't know it is true probably should have asked to ucsf but there is rfp

but that hasn't been made public. we don't know the scope. it is intended at not for profit because that is a good way to go as according to testimony, but the rfp still coming and not there but there is no rfp presented tonight again with any plan and scope and nothing. second, i feel that again mr. buck you made a great presentation last week. could have been the nicest thing you did and biggest mistake because we are armed and dangerous. when you sit in front of us and you say hey, mature trees they get appraise differently. they are treated differently then a small street tree. a mature tree is about the size of the tree and then one of the commissioners goes and

does the math and sees what- if you measure girth and inches that is several hundred trees that should be replace these mature trees and yet 2 to 1. 2 to 1. i don't consider that a clear assessment of the value of these trees, and therefore i don't consider it fair replacement and then in testimony we hear from the ucsf folks that is the direction we got so we went with it and we knew about the 1 to 1 and thought 2 to 1 would be good when the full story was not disclosed and the rules are different with mature trees and in fact the fee is larger or the replacement tree count should be significantly more so that is problematic for me.

overall the negative environmental impact, down 20 thousand trees and take these beautiful mature trees that contribute wonderful things to our environment and they are gone and our environment suffers yet again. i think that there are two choices here. that we deny the appeal because i think the whole thing was improperly issued for a variety of reasons, or that we come back as commissioner trasvina said and review this later and give ucsf the opportunity and (inaudible) the opportunity to have a conversation together and step it up. create a plan. display a rfp scope. get a better clearer more fair

replacement tree and compensation commitment. and that still doesn't take care oof the depletion of the environment but a good way to go. i differ to commissioner trasvina. thank you. >> thank you president swig and i appreciate everyone who testified tonight. i prefer the latter approach of giving ucsf more time to come up a plan and proposal that addresses the legitimate questions members of the public have and all have here tonight as well as mr. klipp. as i understand the testimony from ucsf, these trees have to come down in order for the hospital to be built. it isn't a matter of redesigning the hospital cutting it back, this is essential for this hospital to be built. we are talking about lives. 28 trees we are talking lives. we can say we love

ucsf, this is a world class institution at the forefront of alzheimer's research and so many different things. if we limit their ability that is effecting lives much greater then 28 trees. if the city is town 20 thousand trees that isn't ucsf fault that is city fault. 28 is less then 1/10 1 percent so another 28 needs to be taken into context of 20thousand. but i'm not-i believe that ucsf could bring back more information, more attention to the issues that have been presented, perhaps a different team, get a more complete team of experts before us, and finally, just on the point that they talked about about 2 for 1, 3 for 1, they can keep their commitment to the parnassus community of the number of trees that have been committed to and add

more trees elsewhere. it isn't a either or, i don't want us to be in the position of ucsf going back to the community and say we wanted to do it but board appeals said no. they could do more and should do more but want to give because of the seriousness of the institution i want to give them another opportunity to support the tree canopy and hear us out and hear the members of the community, so i would after our colleagues have spoken i move to continue this for a time that you determine president swig for them to address the concerns we heard tonight. >> we'll start by saying on board with the continuance ideas. i think it makes sense. but i also want to say that if

we are talking--i completely agree with president swig. i think the replacement isn't sufficient and then it is a question-i also agree with commissioner trasvina it does doesn't feasible to keep these specific trees, however unfortunate that may be. the question then is, how many replacement trees are we talking about and mr. buck gave the number of 354 and frankly i don't think that is a stretch. i don't think it is that much a stretch, and while i support the concept of continuing this so ucsf and buff can have a conversation, i kind of want to plant the seed that we could-this body has the power to make a extreme ruling on this

and make ucsf really contribute in a very big and meaningful way to save the southeast quadrant of the city that has been identified as a area of tree need. (inaudible) i'll leave that for the next meeting that we continue to where trees can be-if it isn't 3 full 354 whatever number, either the parties can come to an agreement on or that we decide on our own accord on at the next meeting we hear about this. i think is within the realm of possibility and should be strongly considered by my fellow commissioners. >> are thank you mr. eppler. >> i concur with my fellow commissioners. >> are thank you. i would like to ask two parties whether

they have the will to make changes. the ucsf-who will speak for ucsf when i ask the question, have you heard the points of view of this commission and are you willing to come back with a refined point of view and direction according to the comments that you heard from us tonight? who would like to speak mr. olson are you the lead or who else? >> i can definitely say we heard the comments president and i think certainly the idea of continuance is something that is acceptable. i have to say i haven't spoken to my

client about this but based on it comments from the 4 of you tonight that we would abide by a continuance and take seriously the comments we heard tonight with the idea coming back to this board with a proposal that i think it is more to the board's liking. again, i'm speaking without my client. i don't have crist hristine has guidance but your comments have been well taken and thoughtful and i took notes. >> of course the option is that we take a vote tonight and deny-up hold the appeal and the permit is rejected. so- >> exactly. i understand that president swig so continuance sounds better then that. >> okay. thank you. mr. buff, are you-do you think you could parlay with ucsf

representives and go over the points made tonight and in consideration not only of our points but what you heard in public comment and from the appellate and refine the direction of this opportunity? we do fot want to hold up this hospital. we do want-speaking for the commission i'm sure. we do not want to be the guys that the bad guys would have the hospital ongoing if not for the board of appeals. but the same time i don't think we want to short the citizens of san francisco for their health and the irony is hospital development health. communities are supposed to bring community helths. in the spirit of bringing health this is why we want a little more give on the tree issue. do you think you can work with ucsf to

move forward in that direction? >> for sure. we can committed to that mr. swig, commissioner swig. >> okay. mr. klipp are you available for a further conversation on this to get a more? >> last year i spent the holiday with bart, i guess this year will spend with ucsf. >> mr. klipp, i think we did okay with bart if it moves forward of course. >> there are things-the construction is moving forward. that is happening. >> i like to ask ucsf and buff how much time we need. we have space on the jan calendar. this is later february 8, february 22. >> i would recommend you don't come back half-baked. i recommend you hear that one-we

want to see the rfp and scope. i recommend you come back with a tree planting plan. i recommend you come back with a number of tree to be replaced as a result of tearing out the trees or trees plus cash to be dedicated towards tree replacement in other parts of the city. so, that's ambitious i think between december 15 and january 4 given that there is christmas new years and all the stuff involved, but again i think i speak for the commission, we don't want to be the guy that held up ucsf hospital expansion so your choice guys. >> what was the second date, february- >> february 8. >> so, again, i president swig i prefer to touch base with my client. if we could

tentatively-i agree with you i don't think we should come back half back and address the issues the board is presented tonight. it doesn't make sense. but i don't want to commit to the february date if my client is willing to work over the holidays and do all this, so if there is some way if i can contact you tomorrow and either pick one of the two dates once i have chance to touch base with the client. >> let me ask mr. klipp, is he available on january 4 or i know he prefer february 8 but we have a sense of urgency related to this hospital as well, and ypt to underscore that. but, can you be available-you don't have to do anything mr. klipp. you just have to show up on the 4. so are you available on the 4 of january?

>> well it is my appeal so hoping i have some things to do between now and then because if i hadn't brought this we wouldn't have this conversation. but, yeah i think my concern--about the construction andt notrying to force delay at all. as my mom said she is retiring ucsf social worker so i is a lot of respect for that. you know, given that we don't have a rfp with responses yet and the reason given for that during the discussion were that basically everyone is out of the office, i am not sure how that will change between now and january 4, if anything it will get worse but the people who need to be involved in the consurivation will not be available so don't think january 4 is a feasible date other then half bake plan. i understand why the university feels that is too far

out. i am not sure the answer to that. >> how about we schedule it for february 8 and if mr. olson talks to his client and they think they can get together a plan by january 4 then we can reschedule to january 4. you said you are available and i'm sure mr. olson doesn't want to come back with a half baked plan on february 4. does that sound good? >> i think that is fine. i will touch base with the client tomorrow and explain what the board is looking for. i understood what president swig is look ing for and members of the board and if we hold february 8 and if we can realistically make it january 4 i'll let you know that tomorrow. >> okay, great. we need a motion to continue

this to february 8. >> mr. trasvina will make the motion, please? >> thank you president swig, move to continue this matter to february 8 and with the--that president with schedule on the 4. >> and also so for the purpose so ucsf can develop a replacement plan. >> for the purpose of ucsf, dpw and appellate can collaborate on a-further discussion and a enhanced replacement plan. >> okay. so, on that motion- [roll call] motion carries 4-0 and mr. olson please let me know

tomorrow or friday. >> i will. >> okay, great. >> thank you very much. (inaudible) and have a merry christmas, happy new year, happy hanukkah and wish you all the best. bye bye. >> thank you very much. [meeting adjourned]

>> >> >> >> >> my name is bal. born and raised in san francisco. cable car equipment, technically i'm a transit operator of 135 and work at the cable car (indiscernible) and been here for 22 years now. i grew up around here when i was a little can i. my mom used to hang in china town with her friends and i would get bored and they would shove me out of the door, go play and find

something to do. i ended up wandering down here when i was a kid and found these things. ♪ [ music ] ♪ ♪ >> fascinated by them and i wanted to be a cable car equipment from the time i was a little kid. i started with the emergency at the end of 1988 and drove a bus for a year and a half and i got lucky with my timing and got here at cable car and at that time, it really took about an average five to maybe seven years on a bus before you could build up your seniority to come over here. basically, this is the 1890s verse ever a bus. this is your basic public transportation and at the time at its height, 1893, there were 20 different routes ask this

powerhouse, there -- and this powerhouse, there were 15 of them through out the entire city. >> i work at the cable car division and bunch with muni for 25 years and working with cable cars for 23 years. this is called the bar because these things are horses and work hard so they have to have a place to sleep at night. joking. this is called a barn because everything takes place here and the powerhouse is -- that's downstairs so that's the heart and soul of the system and this is where the cable cars sleep or sleep at night so you can put a title there saying the barn. since 1873 and back in the day it was driven by a team and now it's electric but it has a good function as being called the barn. yeah. >> i am the superintendent of cable car vehicle maintenance.

and we are on the first and a half floor of the cable car barn where you can see the cables are moving at nine and a half miles an hour and that's causing the little extra noise we're hearing now. we have 28 power cars and 12 california cars for a total of 40 revenue cars. then with have two in storage. there's four gear boxes. it's gears of the motor. they weigh close to 20 tons and they had to do a special system to get them out of here because when they put them in here, the barn was opened up. we did the whole barn that year so it's difficult for a first of time project, we changed it one at a time and now they are all brand-new. engineer's room have the four monitors that play the speed and she monitors them and in case of an emergency, she can shutdown all four cars if she needs to. that sound you heard there,

that's a gentleman building, rebuilding a cable. the cable weighs four hundred pounds each and they lost three days before we have to rebuild them. the cable car grips, the bottom point is underground with the cable. it's a giant buy strip and closes around the kab and they pull it back. the cable car weighs 2,500 people without people so it's heavy, emergency pulling it offer the hill. if it comes offer the hill, it could be one wire but if it unravels, it turns into a ball and they cannot let go of it because it opens that wide and it's a billion pushing the grip which is pushing the whole cable car and there's no way to let go so they have to have the code 900 to shutdown in emergencies and the wood brakes last two days and wear out. a lot of maintenance.

♪ [ music ] ♪ ♪ >> rail was considered to be the old thing. rubber tires, cars, buses, that's new. there were definitely faster and cheaper, there's no question about that. here at san francisco, we went through the same thing. the mayor decided we don't need cable cars (indiscernible), blah, blah. we can replace them with buses. they are faster and cheaper and more economical and he was right if you look at the

dollars and cents part. he was right. >> back in 1947 when they voted that, i'm surprised base of the technology and the chronicle paper says cable cars out. that was the headline. that was the demise of the cable cars. >> (indiscernible) came along and said, stop. no. no, no, no. she was the first one to say we're going to fight city hall. she got her friends together and they started from a group called the save the cable car community, 1947 and managed to get it on the ballot. are we going to keep the cable cars or not? head turned nationwide and worldwide and city hall was completely unprepared for the amount of backlash they got. this is just a bunch -- the city came out and said basically, 3-1, if i'm not mistaken, we want our cars and phil and her group managed to save what we have. and literately if it wasn't for them, there would be

no cable cars. people saw something back then that we see today that you can't get rid of a beautiful and it wasn't a historical monument at the time and now it is, and it was part of san francisco. yeah, we had freight back then. we don't have that anymore. this is the number one tourist attraction in san francisco. it's historic and the only national moving monument in the world. >> the city of san francisco did keep the cable car so it's a fascinating feel of having something that is so historic going up and down these hills of san francisco. and obviously, everyone knows san francisco is famous for their hills. [laughter] and who would know and who would guess that they were trying to get rid of it, which i guess was a crazy idea at the time because they felt automobiles were taking the place of the cable cars and getting rid of the cable car was the best thing for the city and county of san

francisco, but thank god it didn't. >> how soon has the city changed? the diverse of cable cars -- when i first came to cable car, sandy barn was the first cable car. we have three or four being a grip person. fwriping cable cars is the most toughest and challenging job in the entire city. >> i want to thank our women who operate our cable cars because they are a crucial space of the city to the world. we have wonderful women -- come on forward, yes. [cheers and applause] these ladies, these ladies, this is what it's about. continuing to empower women. >> my name is willa johnson is and i've been at cable car for 13 years. i came to san francisco when i was five years old. and that is the first time

i rode a cable car and i went to see a christmas tree and we rode the cable car with the christmas worker and that was the first time i rode the cable car and didn't ride again until i worked here. i was in the medical field for a while and i wanted a change. some people don't do that but i started with the mta of september of 1999 and came over to cable car in 2008. it was a general sign up and that's when you can go to different divisions and i signed up as a conductor and came over here and been here since. there were a few ladies that were over at woods that wanted to come over here and we had decided we wanted to leave woods and come to a different division and cable car was it. i do know

there has been only four women that work the cable car in the 150 years and i am the second person to represent the cable car and i also know that during the 19, i think 60s and women were not even allowed to ride on the side of a cable car so it's exciting to know you can go from not riding on the side board of a cable car to actually grip and driving the cable car and it opened the door for a lot of people to have the opportunity to do what they inspire to do. >> i have some people say i wouldn't make it as a conductor at woods and i came and made it as i conductor and the best thing i did was to come to this division. it's a good division. and i like ripping cable cars. i

do. >> i think she just tapped into the general feeling that san francisco tend to have of, this is ours, it's special, it's unique. economically and you know, a rationale sense, does it make sense? not really. but from here, if you think from here, no, we don't need this but if you think from here, yeah. and it turns out she was right. so.... and i'm grateful to her. very grateful. [laughter] >> three, two, one. [multiple voices] [cheers and applause] >> did i -- i did that on purpose so i wouldn't. ♪ [ music ] ♪ .

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood

muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their

own- that's >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday december 15, 2022. close out the year with a bang. to enable public participation sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live and we'll receive public comment for each item. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment period are available