the appellant is requesting a rehearing of the appeal. the appellant versus san francisco public works from july 25th, 2018. the board of vota 3-2 and president fung and commissioner honda dissented to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. the permit description his approval of request to remove to privately maintain street trees with replacement of 124-inch box sized tree. the location of the species of replacement tree subject to final approval by public works. we will hear first from the requester. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the attorney for the appellant. he is here today. we are back here today to ask for a rehearing of the appeal, which concerns the planning of two trees at the location on cortlandt. this has been a procedure that has been ongoing for quite a while and in our negotiations with the bureau of forestry, the appellant has decided that he would like to plant a columbia variety of tree. at the hearing on july 25th, the commissioners decided to deny the appeal. at that hearing, we ask permission to

because the appellant didn't want the ballet school to go out of business, but the appellant explicitly left it up to the ballet school, to the permit holder, to ensure that this egress complied with city code. as it turns out, this agreement does not meet code for egress, and the appellant does not want to be on the hook for liability if something happens with the stampede of people leaving that school over his property. as the court found, again, on the overhead, i'll quote, instead of addressing the actual circumstances with city officials, however, crossroads misrepresented its interest in the set back, there by cutting short the administrative process. there can be little doubt that had crossroads been truthful, it and its neighbors would not be in the difficult situation they find themselves. at this point, they've decided to deal only with the ground floor egress and they're ignoring the second floor egress for the balance eye school assembly. this is a much more hazardous condition upstairs because it's an assembly and it includes children. so what's wrong with the subject permi

if it needs to be made adequate, then, the ballet and the appellant need to work that out. i'm sure that the ballet would be very surprised that they are suddenly being told that the -- what they were given in exchange for their settlement was invalid at the time it was issued. i mean, it's really -- to me, it's a very simple review. the permit's a very distinct line of work, and i -- i believe that it's pretty clear-cut and should be approved. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> is there anyone from the ballet -- is there anyone that represents the ballet in this room? >> they weren't really a party to this action. neither was the owner. >> okay. >> i have a question. your ground floor space shows a vestibule and an access into the rear which then has access to that site. >> right, and we don't -- we are not able to use that for ground floor egress. that was part of the lawsuit. >> what's the purpose of the doors, then? >> what's that? >> what's the purpose of those doors? >> in the back? they were originally egress, but we lost that in the case. >> they

from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> i want to clarify a couple of things about the hotel. our business, assisted living, is not just a regular apartment, it's for people who come if they have a need to be cared for like medication and dementia care. those are very limited clientele. it's not just you come in a room and board. to answer the question of commissioner swig about why does this not fill up for the entire last 14 years and we are stuck. the below market we have problems of the market rate, you know. but for below market, even that wait was set up by d.d.a. and it's still an forward abl not ar people that qualify because they have a limit of how much income to qualify for level care. it's a very complicated calculation and during a couple meetings with city attorney and also the mayor's office and office solution how to resolve it. they don't listen. my goal is, i think also the goal for the public is how to fill up and help seniors who need help. not only we, avenue, are private. we h

i am the appellants. my reason is is to prevent manifest interests and omission of different material facts. that if presented, would present a change of the variance. i have applied for two variances. one for exposure and one for open space. to present an affordable unit on the lower level. at the appeal hearing, the president stated that the reason he would vote against the variances is because neither the appellants or oral arguments prevented the variance. these criteria are different material facts. they are. one, why extraordinary circumstances for my property because it was originally one property and then split into three. and my property is on a northward slope. two, why the enforcement of the code leads to practical hardship to me and it would be cost prohibitive to give up a new affordable unit otherwise. three, why i am deprived of a substantial property right that similarly situated other property owners had. for, why granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfa

i would agree tonight, with the appellant, that one of the windows, there is a permit at the appellant's property he is building on that is requiring a roof deck. there is one window that will be closer than six feet to one of the opening on the neighbor's property. that's going to be an issue. i have to inform the appellant as well, because of this whole issue that we brought up here, it's possibly -- there's a possibility his permit has been approved and that was permitted at the -- for the roof deck, because of the proximity of the skylight opening and the stair going to the roof deck. that is something we need to address. i thought i would add that as well. there's a photograph in the brief of a window, and that will come up in front of that window. if that window is allowed to remain. i talked a lot. i'm available for any questions. i just ask the senior inspector walls with me. hopefully i've covered everything. if there's any questions, i'd like to -- >> i have one. so, the large window, there's several windows. i think there's six openings. the very large one that the tenants are

the appellants purport -- [inaudible] >> -- the future issuance of 415 francisco for which d.r.ot taken and we hope that your decision in this sends a message to the harassment of the project by this party. thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there anyone here from the planning department? >> scott sanchez, planning department. would like to highlight a couple of facts. the permit was actually approved in error by the planning department because the roof deck has a 6 foot high glass wind screen under the code. anything higher than 4 feet would require a section 311 notification. i discovered this when reviewing the project plans today, and i did reach out to the attorney and spoke with him earlier. another issue that i had noticed appears to be inaccuracy on the roof plans, they're showing the second set of stairs as existing, but in reality, that is a new condition. i think it must be a drafting issue because in the brief, it seems as if they're representing the second set of stairs as a new addition. in regards to the compliance with the not yet adopted roof deck policy,

i'm representing the appellant. on the overhead i have a very quick summary of some of the key dates which is the variance approval in 2010, the three year deadline, expiring in 2013, the permit addition and 2015 and the permit suspension in 2018. and then the d.b.i. extensions to the permit over a number of years. there are a number of equitable reasons why we are asking you to rescind the permit suspension. and then there are also reasons and precedent as to how and why you can actually do that. by paying the extension fees and complying with the d.b.i. notices, the appellants did not realize there is a separate variance deadline that had already passed. they assumes that everything covered by the permit would remain valid with the extensions of the permits. if you look at exhibit i in our brief, there is only an administrator that had himself grievously held when the conditional use authorization is extended by the planning commission, the separate variance is deemed to be subsumed in the extension. there is no ne

the e.i.r. studied and also concluded. we had one appellant state the central soma plan was equivalents to 10 oil refineries and different numbers 20 times what the risk should be, 226 per 1 million chances of getting cancer. could we clarify that because i think that is very confusing. none of us want a plan that increases cancer risk by that magnitude in the south market or in san francisco. >> yes, i am jessica range. i will respond to your question. the e.i.r. analyzed two scenarios. one is existing plus plan. that assumes all of the development would occur as soon as the plan is adopted using 2014 emission factors. that is where the cancer risk of 226 comes from. that is at one individual receptor point. we are in accordance with the methods we use from the air district we identify the maximum alley exposed receptor points. it is maximum not what occurs throughout the plan. second was a 20/40 scenario assuming the plan is built out in year 2040 using 2040 emissions factors. that is where the maximum impact is 8.1 as mentioned by some of t

we did have a request specifically from one of the appellants to as today is the day after labor day, and folks wanted additional time. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. so should we take public comment on these items? i'll take a second on the motion to continue. supervisor yee has made a second on that motion to continue. thank you. so we still need to take public comment at this time as to whether or not we can continue. so if there's any member of the public that would like to come up and speak on items 16 through 19, come on up to the podium. just as a reminder, you'll have two minutes of speak time. you'll hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on the balance of your time. welcome, sir, the floor is yours. >> david chiu with the south of market community action network. just wanted to say we're in support of the continuance. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. are there any other speakers? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i have a motion to continue these -- may i have a motion to continue the appeal? made

this is order number 187812 and we'll hear from the appellant first. >> you have seven minutes, sir. >> hello, my name is keith -- i live at 477 hickory street. i'm the property owner. in 1992, these two red flower trees were planted. i've taken care of them for 26 years. i've been responsible for maintaining them, trimming them. they've gotten way too large for the street and they're over 55 feet tall now. over the years, there's been lots of trucks, people renting u-haul trucks with broken branches and there's lots of scars on the lower parts of the drunk. this image here shows some of the current issues with the trees. there's always been a problem with the tree now that it's larger. it's in the way of the fire escape at the apartment building next door. they trim the branches off and i do but it's contributed to an unbalanced canopy on the tree where it's lopsided. that has contributed, i believe, to the fact that these trunks themselves are bending, they're not parallel. they're leaning. leaning into the roadway. and the canopy is leaning into the roadway and it's not balanced. s

the appellant. >> in all fairness things sound really clear cut in retrospect. at the time the planning department when they were making this decision was struggling to understand these rules. in answer to mr. swig's question about the fact that the applicant would run into a bump in the road eventually, even they were allowed to go back to the planning department and then go back and follow the process that they were originally entitled to, mr. sanchez says that is correct, they would run into a hurdle eventually anyway. the reality is that four applicants went through the planning commission and are now going to the office of cannibas and getting a permit. they didn't go to the office of cannibas first. they went to the planning commission first. and that's a real distinction here. so if for whatever way we could get this back in front of the planning department and we could follow the process that we're entitled to under the health code and the planning code, and then we would be in that same exact position and there would not be the hurdle that was presented.

>> i agree that there's been overreach by the appellate body. i also would note that the current quote strangulation policy started under the obama administration and has been continued under the trump administration. so this is not a new -- this is not a new strategy. i think the head of the wto is as good a wto director general as we've ever seen, and i give him a lot of room to try to work this through and hope that, you know, that they have an ask when the time comes and think this could be addressed. there are a couple trading partners that as i understand it are trying to work with the u.s. to get this addressed because this is not just a u.s. concern. but it is one that needs to be address short-term in terms of the appellate body. long-term, in terms of updating the rules. again, this goes back to the point that we stopped writing the rules in 1993, 94, and you've got an appellate body that's trying to extrapolate that has no business extrapolating. >> we have raised all of these issues with the wto. i will let that speak for itself. we t

one clarification based on the appellant's comments. i want to clarify. the h.p.c., in it's action calculated make finding us and did clear this based on the conformance with the secretary of interior his standards. we don't see that as a valid issue in this case. i have no other comments but i am available for questions. >> thank you. with the arts commission? would you come forward, please? >> thank you. thank you for your time this evening. i wanted to add date and correctly cite restrictions of the act and the federal visual arts act. it does not apply to the removal of early days. the duration of protection under the civil code extends for 50 years following the death. because the artist died over 50 years ago in 1932, capital rights and duties expired in 1983. we have done due diligence on the legal exposures that would be there, as we do with the removal of any artwork. we are in compliance on both of those. >> i have a question. as the acting agency for removal and storing the statue, is their associated cost that is attributed to that? have you do

of the application that the appellant submitted and have a copy of the director's order so i can point to it. >> vice-president swig: ok. thank you. >> commission -- thank you commissioners. this matter is submitted. >> commissioner lazarus: two commissioner's wake's suggestion, would it be a situation where we did something like that it would be a future disaster or the tree wouldn't thrive. or where there are there trees that would thrive there? >> we have hundreds of street trees in alleys like this in the western edition. we have very similar issues. whole bunch of those alleys. we have very similar settings and some trees have been able to get established and some have added a lot haven't. it is really inconsistent and hit and miss situation. >> president fung: anybody else? i think i showed my cards and i would be prepared to suggest a motion where the appeal is upheld and that the current street trees are removed and replaced by two new street trees in a 2-foot square box, as long as a 40-inch pedestrian access exists on the sidewalk and that the replacement trees would be at th

to say that this hasn't been democratic, is not, in any way like any of the appellant but since claims around how it has been treated. this has been possibly one of the more democratic processes in the united states and the removal of monuments. it is happening across the country because of changing attitudes and racism in our society. >> ok. thank you. cat i get a show of hands, who is here for public comment? so we have quite a few people and i think it will -- will be limiting it to two minutes. if you could line up against the wall and we will hear -- i would appreciate if everyone respects the time limits. thank you. we will hear from the first speaker. >> hello president and commissioners. i and sally brown. i am the -- i come here today as three representatives. i come here today as a native american. i am half native american. i come here today as a resident of san francisco and they come here today as a representative of the board of supervisors of the city and county of san francisco. when i first came here in the eighties, late eighties, i came here because i came from a ver

there has been overreach by the appellate body. i also would note that the current strangulation policy started under the obama administration and has been continued under the trump administration. this is not a new strategy. wto is ahe head of the good director general as a have ever seen. room to try lot of to work this through and hope ask bob lighthizer has an when the time comes and think this could be addressed. there are a couple of trading partners that are trying to work with the u.s. to get this address because this is not just a u.s. concern. it is one that needs to be addressed short-term in terms of the appellate body. long-term, in terms of updating the rules. it goes back to the point that we stopped writing the role in 1993-1994, and you have an appellate body that is trying to extrapolate and has no business. we have raised all of these issues with the wto. i think tactically we just took a very different approach to try and resolve these. like other administrations, we race those concerns in working with the wto an

the member states can get together and decide what the appellate body ought to do. ada is trying to do is build a consensus to do that to address some of our concerns. i think that is possible. they had to get the chinese to agree. they had to get the indians to agree. but if they do, i think that will solve some problems. and i think, you know, if you talk to our ambassador, our u.s. aboutrepresentative light has her, he appreciates the value of the wto and would like to make it successful. shery: one of the key issues being discussed is the use of tariffs on the grounds of national security. i really enjoyed your podcast and i remember you did not agree congress tosh in send that authority to the defense department. explain to us why. bill: well, because if you do that, you are going to get a lot more affirmative findings out of the defense department. the proposal to move it was a reaction to the fact that there have been a couple positive studies out of the commerce apartment. i used to run the bureau that did these studies, and i think you get -- you have a bunc

lastly, there's rebuttal time of three minutes each for the department and appellant. >> approval of minutes. the meeting held on august 2018. >> next item is item d. case 6849386 pier street. action requested by appellant. >> we have multiple complaints, phone calls from this property, stating that since 2010 there's nothing that's been done in this property. it was a cottage that has basically almost deteriorated, multiple dry rot issues. violation 2010 to correct the unsafe condition, which requires that notice. the owner had a building permit, but later we found out that all those permits that were obtained, basically the building was rebuilt. there's planning, zoning approval. we started getting the phone call. hey, this was exceeded, can you guys come out. we went out, issued a notice of violation for what we saw there. we couldn't get access to the property, but we got access to the neighbor's property, and we could see it. some of the permits ask for the work or the property to be repaired in kind, but, again, those permits never went through planning. it wasn't routed to plan

it is typical in the process of these appeal hearings after hear from the appellant and members of the public that there is a opportunity four the planning defendant to present and the real party in interest can present what they wish to present in response to the issues raised and in this case the department has presented about the plan. my colleague can respond to that. >> i agree you you have a private project sponsor if it was a development project that the planning department is the project sponsor so the quick overview of the plan is to provide additional context on the plan which is the subject you have th the e.i.r. to provie the additional information for the board in considering the e.i.r. >> at this time i would like to you invite the members of the public who want to speak in opposition. you have two minutes. we are looking for members of the public speaking in opposition of the appeal. first speaker come on up. >> okay. i know everyone is so tired. i am jenny smith. i represent the construction employers comprised of 100 or so union building contractors in northern califor