[♪♪♪]

>> my family's starts in mexico in a small town. my parents are from a very, very small town. so small, that my dad's brother is married to one of my mom's sisters. it's that small. a lot of folks from that town are here in the city. like most immigrant families, my parents wanted a better life for us. my dad came out here first. i think i was almost two-years-old when he sent for us. my mom and myself came out here. we moved to san francisco early on. in the mission district and moved out to daily city and bounced back to san francisco. we lived across the street from the ups building. for me, when my earliest

memories were the big brown trucks driving up and down the street keeping us awake at night. when i was seven-years-old and i'm in charge of making sure we get on the bus on time to get to school. i have to make sure that we do our homework. it's a lot of responsibility for a kid. the weekends were always for family. we used to get together and whether we used to go watch a movie at the new mission theater and then afterwards going to kentucky fried chicken. that was big for us. we get kentucky fried chicken on sunday. whoa! go crazy! so for me, home is having something where you are all together. whether it's just together for dinner or whether it's together for breakfast or sharing a special moment at the holidays. whether it's thanksgiving or christmas or birthdays. that is home. being so close to berkley and

oakland and san francisco, there's a line. here you don't see a line. even though you see someone that's different from you, they're equal. you've always seen that. a rainbow of colors, a ryan bow of personalities. when you think about it you are supposed to be protecting the kids. they have dreams. they have aspirations. they have goals. and you are take that away from them. right now, the price is a hard fight. they're determined. i mean, these kids, you have to applaud them. their heart is in the right place. there's hope. i mean, out here with the things changing everyday, you just hope the next administration makes a change that makes things right. right now there's a lot of changes on a lot of different levels. the only thing you hope for is for the future of these young kids and young folks that are getting into politics to make the right move and for the folks who can't speak.

>> dy mind motion. >> even though we have a lot of fighters, there's a lot of voice less folks and their voiceless because they're scared. >> good evening, welcome to the president jose perez will be presiding tonight. also present is deputy city attorney jen haoper who will provide the board with any

advise. i'm julie the board's executive director. we will also be joined from representatives that will be presenting before the board this evening. up front, we have tina, representing the planning department. and nevel pe rera will be joining us by zoom. sxlt up front we have javier, and we also have nicholas craw board acting superintendent urban forestry. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request that you turn off or silence any phones. no eating or drinking in the hearing room.

members of the public who are not affiliated have three minutes. time will be three minutes if the agenda is long or if there are multiple speakers. we will give you a verbal 20 seconds when your time is almost up. please email board staff at board of appeals. now public access and participation are of paramount importance. sfgovtv is recording this live. also providing close captioning for this meeting. so watch the meeting, go to channel 78, please note that it will be rebroadcast on friz on

channel 226. sf gov.org. now public comment can be provided in three ways. one in-person, two via zoom, go to our website and click on the hearings then the zoom link. or three by telephone. enter webinar id 1202840. and again sf gov. tv is broadcasting and accessing the number. to block your phone number first dial star-67 and then the phone number. dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. you'll be brought into the hearing when it's your turn to speak. you will have two to three minutes due to the agenda time. please note that there is a delay between live proceedings and when this broadcast and

live streams on the internet. therefore it's important that people reduce their volume on the tvs or computers. if any of the participants need a disability or technical assistance, you can make a request on the chat system. or send an he email. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we'll take public comment first from those physically present in the room. now we will swear in or affirm any of those who are attending. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings, raise your right hand and say i do. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in will be the truth, the whole

truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> please put your speaker on mute. commissioner we have one housekeeping item. the parties for item 5, have come to an agreement and would like the board to adopt. the agreement is dated may 18th and posted on our website. the appellant would like to briefly address the board so. mr. clip. you have three minutes to address the board. i'll just do this. >> good evening, it's been 1 19 days since we first convened to removal of these three cherry trees.

nine days john sent me a list, a list that he created himself walking block by block, i got a reply that they would get to work on it. then there was 40 days of silence, by day 41, i called again and another 20 days of silence. on day 70, i followed up again. on day 77, public works emailed that they had no plan. i replied and never received an answer. on day 104, we had our first meeting to discuss the resolution. they could not answer tree diameter. on day 1117, we had our second meeting but public works forgot about it and didn't show up. so by day 118, yesterday, i

told public works that we received an agreement. public works filed a complaint and by day 51 issued a reprimand. and then i realize, this city can move fast if they want to. and two, i cannot save these cherry trees. even though they were unable to articulate simple answers to basic questions, the removal of these two trees must stand that they were right and to a sage the bruised ego. so i gave up on that. i gave up on trying to protect the two trees because i believe i could not overcome. and while the city has apologized, it has never apologized to these two trees. apparently, that's left to people like me.

so tonight, i'm going to honor those trees, thank them for their lives, thank them for what they've given us and unfortunately thank them for their sacrifice. i'm going to read a japanese aico translated into english. >> 30 seconds. >> the cherries only fault, the crowds that gather when they bloom, thank you. >> thank you. i don't believe any of the other parties want to speak, so we have comments? you do have to call public comment. do you have a question or a comment? >> i have a question for the witness, if that's -- ~>> appellant mr. klipp. >> yes. >> i guess, it's more of a reaction and that is the story that you have told here, have you had the opportunity to tell

anybody else about that? >> i'm not sure who would care. really i'm not sure. so i just wanted it to be said. >> okay, i don't ask you out of levity or out of any lack of regard for your work on this and your efforts, but i do hope that there are other people in this building who are hearing you, and can do things that this board cannot do to address the very serious statements that you have made today. and i appreciate your here and other members of the public diligence in participating, not losing faith and helping resolve matters of importance to every one. and however long those trees would otherwise have lived, on the shade that they would have otherwise have given, i want to

express my appreciation for your comments today. >> thank you. >> vice president. >> i want to thank you mr. clerk for your diligent and important work that you continuously do for the city. it's not something that you're going to get thank for a lot in the world. >> thanking is not what i get. >> i want to thank you because i see what you do and i see you here all the time and i appreciate it. and i know other commissioners do. >> thank you. >> commissioner swig. >> josh you know from my past appreciations on the efforts, i'm very sorry, given i guess that i'm a city employee that i'm the representative of the mayor, i'm sorry the department did not see fit to respond to you in a timely and respectful fashion. and i don't know what to do about that. next time i see that department

head, who have responded you to remind them that you paid taxes, you pay their salaries and they should be for respective and responsive to somebody like myself, we do it for the better good and sisry. i apologize that you want through that. my respect continues to be the highest and please continue your good work because you're a good conscious for everybody involved who this pay more attention. >> mr. lopez. >> i he echo the words of appreciation for your work. and at the risk of saying the obviously, waut your attention and diligence, we would not have a deal like the one that

was accepted which is a net positive and i think it's a result of your efforts, without which, i think you know, much more in this space would go unaddressed. and so thank you for your diligence on this question and other matters as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now move on to public comment, is there anyone in the room that would like to provide public comment on this item? okay, i do see a few hands-on zoom. the phone number ending in 2185, please go ahead. please star of to unmute yourself. >> speaker: just in your point of confusion, the agenda online item number 5 of trees at 100 street, assumes no longer item 5.

on the screen it says you're discussing item 5. >> we have a housekeeping items the parties for appeal number 23-058 have come to an agreement and the board plans to adopt that, i will check online. i'm not sure what you're looking at. >> i'm looking at your agenda at your website. >> thank you. >> so what agenda item is 1100 mission street? >> i have 100 mission street as item number 6.

>> i think you're confused about the numbering on the website, you will see that 1100 mission street is item number 6. it's listed, so please open up the pdf of the agenda. >> okay. >> thank you, let me protest the apparent loss of these two trees. okay, is that it? >> speaker: yes. >> thank you, we will now hear from bunny, please go ahead. >> hi, can you hear me? >> you have three minutes, please go ahead. >> can confirm that you can hear me? >> yes, you can. >> i was just, also looking at the agenda and it seems like the motion was suppose to be granted due to the removal and removal was consistent and it

does not sound like those concerns were addressed. i'm not hearing why those trees still need to be removed. and in addition, echoing, it also sounds like the city didn't actually care to do what the board ask, to find a solution to plant additional trees without the assumption that these two trees would be removed. i want to say that this is incredibly disappointing and erodes what others are doing. and the environment that we live in. i just want to say it's a very disappointing all around that it feels like the appellant was not listened to. and i ask the board to agree to the plan to plant more trees and keep the two that are there. there has been no basis for their removal. thank you. >> okay, thank you. is there any further comment, please raise your hand?

okay, michael nolte please raise your hand. >> speaker: hi i'm michael nolte, i was involved in the process of some of the original meetings and you know, it is frustrating trying to keep trees especially when the community feels that there is no need to remove then. and then, when it said that the there was some sort of agreement, how does one get an agreement na is being talked about today if it's not in the website and it was not really mentioned so far. and it's just frustrating all the way around dealing with city departments. the many years that, i grew up

in san francisco and i'm still puzzled how the government works and does not work. and like was mentioned already by the commissioners, you know if you're from san francisco, you live in san francisco and you pay taxes and you like the elected official and you hope that government works better. it seems government working for the people or this is just a bunch of people that go to work and for themselves and not the people. so frustrated all the way around there should have been a better outcome no removal of trees is necessary if there was no reason to remove the trees. and more trees need to be planted in san francisco, period. thank you. >> thank you, and just to address the question, the agreement is posted online under the supported documents on this appeal. we will now hear from john nolte, please go ahead.

>> speaker: good evening, i have a couple of issues here. one that this is, the we, modeling a japan town center there. is the real issue why this is happening because of the and it was really not discussed. and therefore we're talking about multi million dollars for the fixing of the garage and the plaza. and so, there is money there but they don't want to discuss money. i think when you have a multi million dollars budget and discussed the last time around, about people here, when i was formed and so forth, the issue is here now. why only 9 trees of which i see is the agreement which is good and indirectly but at no timeline and if there is no

money for it and if there is no agreement to watering them for three years, you know, you need the whole package. you need to know the reason y they have to be removed which we don't know and also we don't have, really no source of money for the planting of any trees and what department is it going to be rec and park? or what the department is going to plant trees and be acknowledging that these trees would be planted. i don't think that is really being discussed. you had an agreement but again, i took time several hours, i don't see the trees that i pick because they have a thing about doing their own thing anytime they get any kind of a list. so i question, the process the agreement, the length it took to the agreement. and also what is going on between buff, the board of

appeals and not being able to get a more accurate functional city government when these things are discussed in an open forum and not having, not being coming to a real settlement. so because you have an agreement but that does not mean the agreement is going to be enforced because there have been other agreements about trees and they still have not been done. sol. it's great that we have, we have come to the board of appeals for an agreement and so forth. but the follow-up. and so, that's what we need to follow-up and also more transparency on how these things work. second, for your time. >> thank you, is there any public comment? pleas raise your hand. i don't see any. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, do i have any

discussion or a motion starting with commissioner swig? >> sure, julie, i can't i'm having trouble with my computer and we've gone paperless and i'm an old guy that needs paper. settlement, related to the last public comment, the in the agreement is there a time line when these trees are to be replaced? >> yes, it's everything is spelled out in the agreement. >> can you, would you please. >> pull it up on the screen, alex, please. so i can see. >> it's by mid-october. >> it's posted online. to be replaced with a deadline.

>> that's great, that's what i want to know. i'm sure if if those trees are not in by mid-october, first i want the executive director to please, put an article file to ask dbw if those trees are in by october 31st because we've got experience with promised made and promised broken. and i'm sure that mr. klipp will come in public comment on october 31 if those trees are not in place. but just in case, i'd like to hold dpw accountable because there seems from the public a concern of that this is not a series agreement. >> did you want to us show the agreement online?

>> it's not necessary. i just got answer, which is the timing but we've had prez, i can think of the library, i can think of the the thing on eddie street where that test is in the parking lot there. those promises have not been kept the public has spoken in public comment, that there is a level of mistrust. our position here on this board of appeals is to build trust between the public and the trust with city hall. so that's a good way to send a message that we'll be looking. >> thank you, commissioner swig.

>> i'm wondering president lopez is dpw here to talk about this settlement? >> it looks like we have a representative here in the room. >> nicholas craw board is here. they don't have any comments, they have come to an agreement and they didn't feel necessary to speak. do you have a specific question for them? >> i did, i didn't realize they were here. usually they come up and say, we have no comment and we're here to answer questions. i missed that part. >> i mentioned that only the appeal appellant wanted to address the board. i'm sorry if that was not clear. >> well i have questions. >> okay. >> nicholas crawford acting superintendent. >> thank you, i see in the

written document that it's not removal of two trees, it is the addition of 9. what seems to be a negotiation and agreement. as i heard mr. klipp earlier, it sounded like dpw was not meeting or communicating. is this a bona fide agreement? or is it something where you just gave up? >> sure, i was not part of the negotiation, but i'm here to represent the department so it would be hard for me to the conversations that brought us here. if this is something that you accept, then they would absolutely be a binding agreement between us. >> are you aware of any of the negotiations. >> i was familiar with the

conversation because we were talking about things as we go long, but if there was a specific communication gap, i would be look into that. >> did you hear him describe the 1120 days, is there anything in there that was incorrect? >> i was in those conversations but i can follow-up with you. >> is sounds like there were no conversations. i'm trying to get a sense as i look at this work, one level it looks like it's negotiation and agreement. lose two, get nine trees, nobody gets everything that they want, it seems reasonable. on the other hand, as testified, that it sounded like there was a delay or there was a meeting that was scheduled

and people forgot, or there was a meeting and they were not prepared. i'm trying to get some inside as ho how seriously the department took the instructions from this board when we said we're continuing this for the purposes of the parties to meet, and to reach an agreement. >> for us, it could have been a couple of things happening, where this was rec park project initialed and we were involved from the perspective of the trees, if our conversations were not being related that would be part of the issue that is being described. but in the lead up to this, we inspected the sites and marked them for utilities and determined if they were valid. so we stand behind what we're proposing and the basil area

is, it's rounding up to more than fulfill that comparison and making sure that we're planting nine trees that would more than offset the basil area lost. >> i only have two questions i don't want to be labor the point because there is an agreement. can you articulate the removal of the two trees? >> yes. can i use the projector?

so these are the trees from one perspective and then from the other perspective. they're small trees, very small canopies. the cherry trees and the sidewalk space. so, none of those things are factors for removal, but this is much different perspective. so from this driver's perspective, the trees are--that small profile can be. i didn't realize that there is a streetlight there. so right underneath, you can barely see the green light t.does obstruct the visibility of that traffic light.

that would be a way to mitigate that. so you can still see the traffic light if we could raise the branches. since the cherry trees, they cannot get that big to below that site line. this is not something that we're driving around looking to remove trees but when there is project like this, it prompts closer examation, that's what brought this concern. if it ab instructs the traffic line, andobstructs the traffic

line, and--. >> well when the department decided not to speak to us, they could have said this. i'm just one member but i think you heard my colleagues and i would hope that the message you heard here pretty unanimous goes back to others in your department so they can reflect upon the level, the harming of credibility when we hear things from members of the public and we don't get a response from the department. thank you. >> i'm happy to take any other questions. >> thank you. message received. >> thank you. >> with that, seeing no further comment, i'll make a motion and i may need your help with this julie, i believe we're granting

the appeal, correct? >> correct. >> and then adopting the removal of on the basis of the agreement that has been reached among the parties. >> the original order allowed for the removal but we would be adopting the agreement dated may 14th which talks about the replacement plans and timeline. so the motion would be to grant the appeal and order to require the adoption of the agreement dated may 14, 2024. committed by the parties for the hearing today. and what would be the basis for your motion? >> on the basis that the agreement addresses the issues raised in the appeal. >> okay, thank you. on that motion, commissioner tras vina. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> president lopez. >> aye. >> that carries. that was a housekeeping item,

so we're going to move to item 1. to general public comment. this is for anyone that would like to speak on on item that is not on tonight's calendar. okay, please approach the microphone. you have three minutes. >> speaker: hello i'm kevin roach from the arts of san francisco, we're asking the board, we need more affordable housing for people with disability. and we're wanting to know, that now downtown the buildings downtown, there are office space could be a possibility or

something, because i don't think there is much housing getting built with people with a disability. and i'm worried about the future of people with disability. wla the planning for housing is for people with a disability. that's what i'm asking. >> thank you. if you can fill out a speaker card, that would be great. so we know for the minutes. >> thank you, is there any other general public comment. i see three people on zoom, and this is general public comment. the phone number ending in 2185. please go ahead. >> hi, thank you. i just like to ask that all the board members divulge during tonight's meeting any context you've had with any appellants

or respondents or their allies including city official any communications before the meeting. thank you. >> thank you, next. julie. our policy is that the parties cannot have ex-parte communication with the board, that is prohibited. everything must go through me and be on the public record. thank you. bunny, please go ahead. >> speaker: hi, can you hear me? can you confirm that you can hear me. >> yes, i can go ahead. >> speaker: general comment of just the, the topic of trust in the city is that i personally do not currently trust the city is doing the right thing for trees, i'm trying to be very

general because somewhat feeding from the last topic and the hearings that happen again and again and again, i just want that clear public process and for the city to do what they say what they're going to do, their own plan and policies, just be consistent and be transparent and do what you say you're going to do. this is extremely frustrated as a citizen to hear these matters over and over again and to hear that the city is not doing the right thing for their people. yeah, i'm extremely disappointed. >> thank you, michael nolte, please go ahead. >> speaker: ye, wanted to address the last meeting that you had, you discussed, i guess it's what is called the policies of your board that you're going to be changing the rules. and just because nobody was at

the meeting at the time that you were discussing, it does not mean that the public is not interested on how your policy is going to change. and of course when you coming up about ideas, you want the meeting shorter, you want to do limits on certain things and obviously, when these kinds of changes are made, and if the public are not made aware of, because once they're adopted, then you can see at a meeting, this is now the new policy and and it becomes a surprise to everybody. and i know that you might think that it's a, you know, you've notified everything or something to that affect t.becomes frustrating because not everybody is going to be attending every meeting. nobody has to attend every meeting. and you know, just one of many government bodies that exist in

san francisco and you know, it's very hard for the public to keep track of everything. and yes, i mean you're entitled to make, you know, new set of rules, because it's a new year before you to that affect. but still it's very frustrating when a new, you want to make new changes and i don't know why that needs to happen to begin with. there was nothing wrong with the old policies you had. so, frustrated, i guess is what i'm going to say. it will affect feet meetings and any new policies you do adopt, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner trasvina, i see your hand. >> only to follow-up on commission swig's request of you, and that is if you could or the city attorney can articulate the policy and protocol that we cannot answer

public comments specifically. and our silence to public comment as no connection to the validity of your statements or the importance of them, it's just so i hope that the public does not take from our silence and inattention or insensitivity which would cause further frustration, which we don't want to create. >> and for your information, mr. nolte, on may 29th, we will be proposing no rule changes. so if you would like to participate, we welcome you. okay, so we will now hear from john nolte, please go ahead. >> speaker: good evening, my take on what is going on with the new rules is that it's discussed for several years, the items that you want to change. but you know, my concern is

that, one meeting to look at immediately adopt is not fair. i think this should be a way which you, post the final, next meeting you do your, decide on what what the final version is going to be and leave it up there for another hearing before you make this kind of vote. but i don't think it's fair to think that everybody is going to be at one meeting and having two meetings on the topic wor better for everybody concerned and getting feedback on whatever additional changes, because they were like, i heard 17 different changes that were going to be done to your bylaws for your commission. and i understand you, you can't respond to public comment but i'm just giving you feedback of the public and also what other commissions do when they do

adopt new rules and i understand that your commission, you probably hadn't had those, your bylaws for the commission touched for a number of years. so it's just revision that you're looking to do and to look forward to in your future meetings but i think it's important that people know that those rules how they will affect going forward and have some hindsight and commissioners know everything. thank you very much. >> thank you, is there any other general public comment? okay, i don't see any, so we're moving on to item number 2, commissioners comments and questions? >> commissioners, look like we're all set. >> okay, thank you, we're now moving on to item number 3, adoption of the minutes. are the minutes of the may 8,

2024, meeting. >> commissioner transvina. >> i move to adopt the minutes of may 8th, 2024 meeting. >> okay, is there any public comment to adopt the minutes? on that motion, president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that is adopted. this is appeal 23-037, bureau streets and mapping subject property appealing the issuance on december 121 public works order. the denial of application, all items encroaching the public right away. they did not provide updated plans with the following conditions and alterations. three feet of clearance and box

on hola way sf, three tlaoet of travel and removal of the approximately 10 by 10 cedar burgela. they need to show all features and altered locations of the fences. this is permit 21msc00118. upon motion by vice president lemberg, the board voted 4-1 to opinion to may 15 so the appellant can get a license. so we will hear from the appellant first, welcome you have three minutes. >> thank you. >> did you want to submit something to the board. >> president lopez, i did bring hard copies of the slides if i

can present them. >> sure. our survey does show a 9-foot right away. the type of right away recorded by the subdivision map is the sub surface right away, not as they claim a public right away. dpw shares that in 1915 our 90-foot however, our sub service was not dlud in this

transaction because it's 9-foot width did not meet the transfer requirement. and paramount to this case is the 1922, legalization of our right away as a public utilities easement, and easement by definition is private property reserves for specific purpose making as an unpaid sidewalk both unlawful and criminal. furthermore while dwp claims it's a nine-foot unpaved sidewalk, state and municipal code requires to be able, firm and resistance and be made of concrete, exposed aggregate or other commonly used material. notably, dwp claim that 1098, for our neighborhood is falsified evidence and a felony. ordinance 1098 for lakeview and

enacted when our property was still part of the engel side racetrack. for more claim that the sidewalk is 15 feet and was established in 1903 is falsified evidence and a felony. nearly a decade after this alleged 19 03 legislation and the city approved a sub surface right away, not an unpaved sidewalk. our private green spaces including our utility easement, have been cultivated with the city plan resulting in improved safety, decreased cierjs improved property values, expanded and diversified and increased outdoor engagement. however the city's interest in our is to destroy to permits for nonexistent property crime. this harms the public by violating 29 policies municipal

code and 35 date and federal laws. as there is no public right away, or unpaste ford, or approve or deny the sidewalk permit where no encroachment exist. we humbly ask that dpw repute ated its jurisdiction and direct them to issue a new decision and correct their errors. thank you. >> thank you. member lemberg. >> number one, i wanted to ask if you did record the survey that was prepared by your surveyor? >> is so i had emailed the discussion on whether their licensing agency required that, and i can share with the board, i have copies of emails.

>> can you do that. >> you can show it on the overhead. >> sorry. so the independent licensed surveyor explained the surveyor requirement for filing a record of survey, quote. our licensing requires that we file a record of survey with the county in concern swaixes. for your report it's technically not required. your law is part of a subdivision and i was able to find sufficient monuments, so we technically, don't need a record of sur vai. i normally have to explain to clients why i do, but your situation is one of the rare instances where you don't. and i have the emails attached. >> thank you, this is very helpful. and then the second question, the second thing that was in the order, did you provide the entire report to public works by may second? >> yes, i did. >> okay and was there a

complete report that we didn't see? >> no, that was the boundary. >> okay, thank you. that's all i've got right now. >> thank you, you can be seated. we will now hear from the bureau of streets and mapping. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, i'm javier from public works. our decision remains the same. the survey performed bit private land surveyor, confirms that the dimensions that we were providing and also confirms the location of the sidewalk and the south being

15-feet wide per what was matching per record. and even more importantly it does show, the right-of-way line that we've been seeing and the sidewalk is nine feet, iements the fence is nine feet beyond the property line. unfortunately, the location of the pergula and table and pgne wire, were not shown, it was something that would have been requested by the county surveyor it would have gone through their office.

again, this is what was previously shown to this board last time. the hatched area beginning the property in question and anything beyond the green lines between the red and the green is official sidewalk. official sidewalks measured from the back of the curve to the property line and sidewalks may be paved or unpaved and still remain. so if you're not walking on it, it's still a official sidewalk but it can be unpaved. again, the close view, our estimates have pretty close there. thed pergula, the wire, dpw does not put the wire. the puc streetlight, there is no access to it. and we're told that the clearance between the tree

wells and the fence are is three feet but at this point, we don't have any plans showing so. >> 30 seconds. >> at this point, we feel that we've applied proper codes to the encroachment and we're asking for you to confirm public works decision. >> thank you, vice president lemberg, has a question. >> how do you respond to the appellant's comments that they should cover this area. most of the sunset tist, those nice big green lawns, most of it isn't. they're official sidewalks. there is a lot of areas, in san

francisco. and the key is, path of travel, right. the path of travel does have to be paid, we do have specs for first sidewalks for the walking. >> i'm just not seeing the acception for the unpaved portions of the sidewalk. and i'm not sure where you're basing that assertion. i've seen that services shall be stable and any public street or public right-of-way, sidewalks should be concrete tile et cetera, where is the opposite side of that? >> i don't know offhand to be honest with you. does it exist? yes, they all exist. for example, the sunset we have

to go up and down the sunset telling people that they're encroaching to the right-of-way and it's not paved. for example, if you have a problem and many times that will happen, we just make them get an encroachment permit. so, yeah, the path to travel is really where it comes into play for the paving portion. >> is there any legal citation that even creates the possibility of unpaved portion of sidewalks. >> not that i can think of off the top of my head, i can look into that for you. but no, pretty much the legal parts as far as sidewalk width, i cannot say is measured in the public works because they occured to the property line,

the official sidewalk. and again, official does not always equal constructed. >> certainly, i'm going to pass my phone, i may circle back around here. >> commissioner transvina. >> i have to admit to a great deal of confusion and i hope you help me work this out. are you saying that this 201 ashton sidewalk, the conditions are replicated throughout sunset and other places in san francisco. >> they are, yes. >> so if we make a decision to recognize the city's version whether this is a sidewalk and whether there is encroachment and whether the pergula should be removed, people can say, i'm

at-risk of that also? right? >> i would say no. this law, or it's a state code that makes them responsible for their sidewalk. it already applies to them. >> why resingling out? >> it does not mean that we can't have an encroachment, the pergela and the bench ak sees. so people do have fences in the right-of-way but they're three feet high. same with hand escaping, we do allow landscaping in these areas. for example the pavers, those would be allowed as part of the

minor sidewalk encroachment. the reason this is being denied is because of the items that we can allow. >> and when you say encroachment, that means. >> it's beyond the property line and into the public right-of-way. >> public right of a, public responsibility? >> not necessarily, per the state of california, the sidewalk is the responsibility, the owners responsible for the adjacent sidewalk. >> well isn't the owner taking responsibility with all of these improvements? >> they are but there are also conditions, we have to have certain conditions that we allow encroachments of this type. right, so again, we will allow and we're not saying we don't allow encroachments, we just can't allow all kinds of encroachments. >> okay, that's helpful, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner do you want to hear from the city

attorney first? >> happy to go whenever it makes sense. to address some of the legal questions, i want to to ask the board and make sure there is aware of decisions of public works code. so one is public works code 723, which relates to obstruction of public right away, which is prohibited. the public right away, shall mean area along beneath and on and upon and within the dedicated public alleys boulevard roadway, and ways within the city as they now exist or hear after will exist and which are or will be under the permitting jurisdiction of the department of public works. so public codes 723 provides definition of the public right

away, provides that obstruction is unlawful. the permit here i believe is under public works 723.2 which allows for minor sidewalk encroachments under certain circumstances which i'm happy to answer questions about that. the another code that the board shall be aware of, is public works code 706. and what that provides is that owners of frontage responsible, that the title is owners of frontage for repair liability for unsafe conditions. so it it's a portion of lot to my portion of street, avenue, court or place to maintain the sidewalk and sidewalk area including any parking strip, automobile runway and curve fronting in good repair and

condition. this shall include removal of any unpermitted struck two including but not limited to and the road goes on. in combination the public works code makes it the responsibility of the property owner to maintain in good repair those areas. and 723, precludes the obstruction of a public right away. >> okay, thank you. commissioner swig. >> just when you know everything about growing up in the city, and you've been here for 72 years, you learn something new. i will to the city attorney, i bare witness to the fact that the that your sidewalk is busted and go fix it and don't send us the bill.

i'm very familiar with that. i'm thinking about my kid who just bought a house and i asked where was the dividing line and he didn't know. so one thing that is having in your p.m. is that and i saw it, i saw your point, and it was that, people assume that they're their front lawn belong to them and when in fact, do people assume that their front lawns belong to them, when in

fact, they don't belong to them because that's the sidewalk was put in the first place. so in lieu of having gravel and improved area what happened was, can we plant grass? sure, as city attorney just said, that's cool. and further to that, what you're saying, majority of people have no idea until they try to build a four-foot fence and there is a knock that says, not a good idea make it three. is it as simple as that? >> it is. >> so you're, your point in this, hearing today is the owner of this property there were things that were there

when she bought the property and went to improve those further to enhance her quality of life, the value of the property, that unknowingly that she didn't know what the rules were. and the rules were, you can have nice grass that extends from the sidewalk, you can have a three-foot that extends from seems to be the end of the beginning of your property or the end of these property and we'll let you do that. so is that what is happening here? >> that's pretty much what is happening here, unfortunately. >> and how many people do you think in this city, actually know that that condition exist? because one of the discussion that's we had last time, i

don't know if you brought it up or somebody brought tup, we're setting a precedence how about all the other people in the development. the present is the law, and to your point, is the president the law. the law says that the sidewalk is this wide, yeah we've allowed, the physical is only this wide but that's because there is an easement that is wider and we the city have allowed, development on the easement i don't think you don't go over three people and you don't go pergolas and you don't strike -- ~>> that's what typically happens. typically, again, there is either a complaint of some sort, 31 is called and it comes to our attention there is something or something of that nature. or, the person is developing

something in and their going to building inspection and getting a permit and they come to our department and it involves encroachment. we'll flag it, majority of them come through. there is, there is planters and things of that nature that are within the acceptable encroachment and permitted under a minor encroachment. >> so the dpw point of view, is you should have known that when you bought the house? >> yes, that's the advise that the city attorney have gifp us in the past that we're responsible for knowing what we're buying. >> thank you. >> thank you, no further questions. you can be seated. >> thank you. >> is the planning department going to weigh? >> thank you, you have three minutes. >> good aong, president lopez,

invite president lemberg, members of the board, i'm tina tam deputy zoning administration. 201 ashton a one-story single in the zone d district. the zoning administrative mr. corey knew that there was a pending variance decision for the legalization of the tall-foot trelis in the required setback. this decision is on hold due to the issue related to the location of the front property line. if the board agrees to the survey performed by land surveying, then they agree that the fence and portion of trelis and fire pit are located within the right-of-way. it only covers the portion of the trelis that is in the private report. featured are pursue of public

works. once the decision is made by this board, the zoning administrator will advise the applicant on next steps to correct the and issue for a decision for the variance requests. unless you have any questions for me, that concludes my presentation. >> transvina has a question. >> thank you for your presentation. i've heard city attorney, i've heard commissioner swig, describe, oh it's new but this is the law. what legal changes would be required to allow the homeowner to have the requested component that she is seeking variance for?

>> i'm going to put up a drawing of whaibl is the current condition of the property. this is trelis highlighted in yellow. the blue line is property line per the survey that was submitted. where the appellant has built their four-foot high fence. so as you can see, the fence itself is not on private property, that is something that the planning department does not have per view over, we're not going to be able to advise. however a portion of the trelis

is within the private property and subject to the variance request. so depending upon the outcome of tonight's hearing, we can go ahead and advise the applicant about the trelis. and where the trelis can stay and if so, what is the size, the footprint on the private property portion. or does it mean the findings, it needs to be removed. thoz are some of the possible decisions that the zoning administrator can make on the variance request. >> so the decision on the trelis, is is, unrelated to the issue of whether the fence is on public property or not? >> that's correct. >> so then the issue is, what legal changes would we need to

permit the fence to be? if the city is saying, the fence is unlawful there, what would make it lawful? >> that is the question for public works. i believe he stated some of the conditions, it has to do with the locations of the fence, the height of the fence, some of the sort of parameters like the light post and utility post and so forth. >> okay, thank you. >> president lopez has a question. >> just for the record is planning in agreement with dpw's reading of the survey? >> i'm not qualified engineer or surveyor, but in reading the survey it does point out the property line, it does match up

with some of the language that has been provide beside the width of the sidewalk and the, the width of the, the right-of-way to the center line of the street, that all kind of makes sense. and i to want to conquer with javier about properties in the sunset as a former cohen forcement manager, we dealt with many complaints and investigated a lot of properties all over the city including properties in the sunset where there is a dispute between where is that property line examine where you think the property line should be behind the sidewalk, it's not always the case. sometimes it's often wider and encompasses folks perceived to front yard. so i want to make sure that i'm clear about yes, that does happen examine it happens a lot in the sunset especially for the street that runs east-west

like the ortega, norega, et cetera. >> and to follow-up on that, does planning and maybe during discussion i'll turn to mr. rivera on this note as well. this essential wouldn't have been caught but for the changes to the fence? the replacement to the fence. >> it was a complaint that was filed with the department of building inspection for illegal work. and that pertains to the building of the fence and its height.

and indicated that the appellant the need to follow permit if she wishes to legalize these features. i'm not aware of any resources that are available, we also do not do proactive enforcement and kind of drive up and down sunset as we look for features in public right away, we typically leave things alone, people do sometimes pave in what is public right-of-way, unless it's something that is called in. we don't often send them to public works. >> got it, thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, is there any public

comment on this item? anybody on zoom? i see one hand raised. michael nolte please go ahead. >> speaker: i just want to say a comment that three feet is not much. you can just jump over them, i can understand why property owner would want something higher. i assume that this is something that they're telling their perspective buyers all the things that they're getting into when they buy a new piece of property and decide to make changes to their property or the property has been changed.

there is a lot of stuff that seems to not be doing done correctly whether it's a san francisco or elsewhere and the codes keep on changing. so it really is very confusing for every one involved. every year the state is making changes to the code and so is the city. thank you. >> thank you, is there any public comment, please raise your hand. commissioner this matter is submitted. >> commissioner, let's start with commissioner transvina. >> thank you.

>> because it was previously, they om get three minutes. >> i'm deeply concerned about this. i think this room should be full of property owners. anybody that cares about property rights. as i recall this case, it started by a noise complaint. and fast forward today, if we adopt what the city is stating, every property owner in the sunset, every property owner in the city, particularly in this district 7, district 4, district 11 where this ashton is should be worried. and i can't be a part of the

city sitting back for decades louing this to occur. in this neighborhood and elsewhere. i asked what about the other areas where the racetrack is to be. this is much larger. there needs to be a bert way of resolving this and treating the property owner who has improved her area. and the city is just, in that particular area of the pictures, has neglected it over a period of decades. so i, i don't think that we should set the president about some construction.

i will be upholding it. >> i concur with commissioner transvina. i think the i don't think the a pel enter did anything.

it's not clear that that is part of the responsibility. it's not clear that the pg&e was not built on private property. i don't think it's clear that wasn't either but i don't think it's clear that it was. and i, i also believe that the appellant here, has done a pretty significant good to this neighborhood and i don't think we should discount that. so i would be prone to approving this appeal. i'm really like this could cause very serious repercussion city wide and that's something that we often say that we dont want to do. and if we deny this appeal, it can easily do that.

>> i'm fwg to come from a different position. i cannot support the appeal, i cannot. president can easily do that. >> i'm fwg to come from a different position. i cannot support the appeal, i cannot. because we've heard about the legal statute, when there is a legal statute involved, the legal statute goes outside of our boundary and i won't do that. whether i think it's appropriate or not. we've heard from dpw, this is the way it is. we've heard from the city attorney, she read us a chapter what happens these conditions occur. this is the law.

this body is not in position to deny the law. i look at mr. bruno who is here tonight. mr. bruno has brought in situations, coincidently, he discovered something can rightlely so he called it to the attention to the city in this case. coincidently somebody made a noise complaint, it was discovered that according to legal breaches i hate it pass it off that i cavalier fashion. but that's what happened. coincidently, it was discovered that the law had been breached.

it's perception it's not the law. back when the fence, not this fence, i'm just speaking metaphorically or pa ran theteticll y. guess what, it gets toss thed. if anything by precedence is by denying the law even though this is a unfortunately situation. you cannot deny the law from my point of view. so i wouldn't support this appeal. and in the context of precedent, i want to get my thoughts straight. dpw says this happens, all of

the sunset and until we discover it, i'm not going to quote you and i may get it all wrong. but unless we discover or there is something that really gets in the way, it's my interpretation, it may go discovered. and when it's discovered that's when enforcement action take place. it hay be that others may suffer a similar fate. because for years and years and years, they didn't know it, they had been breaking the law. even when they bought a hout with an existing condition and

the realtor did not disclose it, that did not mean that the law was not being broken, it just means that it was not discovered. so the precedence here is going against the law. if i was a homeowner, i would be pissed but i cannot support an appeal that goes against the law. >> i'll offer some thoughts and we'll go to the speakers requesting the floor. yeah, i see that there is a little bit more closely to commissioner swig's position. i worry, i think we're all expressing concern about precedent setting and i worry about the precedent of a homeowner, whether it is, you know willingly or unwillingly, seeking to make improvements of

their property that encroach into the private, public right-of-way. and being you know, being in a position you know, particularly if somebody does that in bad faith and says, well you let this happen before. and it's outside of the scope of this body. so in my mind, we have to go with what, what is within the public right-of-way. and that question is not, i think unclear in my mind. i do think though, that there

is there is blame to be shared on the part of the city, if we're not proactively, giving residents in these affected areas, a heads up about this. i think there is a problem, and i'm sensitive to previous speakers concerns about having large swats of the city have this mat erin pop up and we heard, somebody, you know, a commissioner talking about a family member buying the property. that was a question that i directed to planning, what are we doing to arm people with that information. when we're relying on diligence

and essentially saying, well we'll address it if and when a complaint lands on our desk i don't think we're being good stewarts for all the property owners in the area. and for responsible you know, home improvement, repair and development and improvement for the community. and i can see this halfing otherwise having a xhilg affect, you know what i'm not going to fix my house because the neighbor down the street, she had to pull out the fire pit, i have a problem with that. i can envision something like in my mind saying that the

instructive of the fire station can stay and then we give, we, we mandate adjusting the fence so that the puc and pg&e access can still be accessed by the relevant parties. you cannot support or just pelg the appellant rather that she has to take out that fire table in the various items of construction that has been done to the work too. to improve the property and improve the neighborhood, generally.

with that i'll yield to vice president lemberg. >> you read my mind, but i do think that there are several sub parts of this that i pulled up for the record. and i would you know, if we don't have the votes for a full grant, i would love to suggest a compromise position where we can keep some of the things while also giving clear and the guy wire and box, yor what i don't remember what the box says. the thing that is problem other

than the strict code interpretations. i do feel like this appeal out right is so punitive in its solutions. this is probably six figures worth of work for something that is added to a lot of neighborhood. so i would love to hear my fellow commissioners thoughts on this. i'm a little bit flexible on the specific terms but i would like to find some compromise position bouncing off what president lopez is saying. >> commissioner transvina. >> would i like to join the president lopez and trying to figure out where that middle ground is. we all look at things in different ways, for example

commissioner swig talks about our responsibility to uphold the law. i look at it as we have some power and it should not be over used. this is over using our power because we are telling properties, property owners throughout the san francisco that they're subject to a lot of discretion and they're subject to again, starting from a noise complaint of about construction worker into you have to remove your fence. by granting appeal, we are shielding san franciscans from a lot of potential of abuse of

discretion. anybody that wants to come a long and say, this is the river and some of the issues that we've had. so i would say that we, we do need to grant the appeal and so do in a way that dress address the specifics as best we can. at the last hearing, we had a lot of neighbors come in and and the appellant submitted a petition, a lot of neighbors who walk in that area, daily. in my mind, they're the ones that are most aware of the safety issue. they're most endangered if it's a dangerous corner and they view the fence as appropriate. any kind of resolution, the, the fence should be left in

tact. i typically encourage the parties to go back and work it out. this is going on for a long time and if my colleagues think that we can resolve that here, i'm happy to hear any motion to see do so. >> commissioner swig? >> will the represent of public works step to the mic. you know what side i'm on, and i always listen to my fellow commissioners. where is the compromise? where is the ability to sustain to do is there a the ability to

develop a cut out? is there the possibility to do a cut out related to the pg&e guide wire? not too sure on the trelis, where the possibility for compromise. where are the possibilities for specific property zen trick, i don't know, that's a planning. but from your point of view, is this, black and white? this is the way it's got to be? or would you like to take the

advise to see if you can work on that and we can post on the decision again so you can all do a negotiation? >> well everything you mentioned about the fence is something we can do. we can accept that. the height, i cannot say yes or no. the bigger is gas we have pergola and the right-of-way. that would definitely have to go higher up. >> is there a chance in hell, i just want to let you know that i am, you know, if you do, if you do, how do not do the 5th here. if i do 57 and a 55, if i'm

doing 75 in a 55, i deserve to get slapped big time. so given and i recognize the 55 and soap, it's still illegal. is there a possibility to take this to your higher ups? to to follow the suggestions of my fellow commissioners and at the same time, i'm sticking to my opinion, i do want to abuse the legal precedence, the legal guidelines that are present in this case.

>> so that may be a no however you may say other things. >> that's a possibly right. >> so what is your decision with that? i think what we can do is take it up to the top before any plans are made. and we go from there, we have the location of the property line. there may be a carve out, pgc may be happy with just having access. the height of the fence, we stick to the planning code because planing code does not have a specific height for fences.

again that's something that i can take up. >> thank you for that commentary. therefore commissioners, i hate continuing because that continues the pain. i hear from dpw that the answer is not no, i want to take it higher, that's the gas, that would be a legal issue. i'm hearing flexibility. and i would like to hear the next chapter rather than no. i would be open minded and

suggest that we follow dbw's direction and come back and here their final answer. commissioner lemberg, you're next. >> because it's fair, it may be continue to when we're all here. if that's close, that's good idea, if there is only four of us tonight, an independent reason. on that basis, i think may 29th isn't enough time. to get all of this time. i know i'm not here on june 12th. but june 26th it appears that we're all here and that's six weekishes are the parties available.

>> let's ask a question first of the appellant because that would be good manners, since we're dealing with her life. can we ask you an important question. will your life be compromised if we kicked this to the 29th so we can help you resolve this issue? >> i would not see that as a severe injustice. there is a couple of points i want to share with the board if possible, that were not brought up that i think are important when we look at this case if possible, almost point of order. >> normally, i would say no, because i'm an hard ass, sorry for that language. i'll let the president make

that decision. >> yeah, we did have the briefing and the presentation, by both parties, so what i would say is if we do go the way the votes go towards continuance, that would be the right time to present those materials whether in your brief or next presentation. >> and there will be a brief and presentation for both? >> yes. ?flt i think we can leave it to the discretion of the parties. >> you know. >> the third round of briefing. >> we can, we have the flexible to allow a two or three minute

update from both parties, if there is a problem. if there is not a problem, then we will not have to have that. let's hope that we can resolve your issues. >> i was going to make a motion. >> mr. rivera, are you going here? >> i may be out but somebody else will be here. >> can i make one comment. >> okay. >> i think what, something that is surfacing is playing whackmo with these are not going to be a good approach. so i think, i just want to say, julie we should talk about

maybe asking the department to present it today to give us a presentation on neighborhoods where there is a known issue. obviously we're not policy making body but there is another body in this body that is, so we can potentially consider that going forward. >> i would recommend that maybe for a future date but what is before you, is the denial of this permit. >> yeah, i was not suggesting that happen right now i'll reach to you online. >> do we have a motion. >> i move to continue this matter to the june 26, 2024 meeting so the department of public works can work with the

property owner and get in, i'm struggling. to accept certain acceptions to their order dated december 11, 2023. >> okay, thank you. >> okay so on that motion. president lopez. >> eye. >> commissioner transvina. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> matter continues to june 26th, and let's clear, are we going to allow three minutes of briefing. >> three minutes of briefing

and comment. >> okay and briefings are submitted. >> can we take a break. >> we'll take a break until 6:58. >> thank you for your patience. >> 100 mission l.l.c versus san francisco public works, subject property 100 mission street and 5 trees are on the same property on 60 spaoers street.

appealing on issuance to 1100 mission llc of a public works order, denial of an application to remove ten street trees. the applicant seeks removal for to address water intrusion into the building. we'll hear from the appellant first. welcome, you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. here on the property owner. we would first to acknowledge for working for us on this and we're happy to accommodate the larger boxes that they've requested. since we've been able to reach an agreement, i'm going to try to limit my remarks but i would like to explain why these trees need to be replaced.

88 sphere or 1100 mission or 60 sphere is an aging office building with constructed in 1966. as shown on the proposal to renovate the property and create a more groundwork experience, they will add a floor cafe, complete a major renovation, to create tenant and construct a new level restaurant. providing resort is a key aspect of the plan for this property. with the goal of enticing people. most of these amenities would be added to the basement which would include sauna rooms and gym. as detailed in our brief, the has been on water.

there are visible signs of water intrusion as you can see here. given the scale of improvement plan for the basement, it's critical that ownership implement a permanent solution to the water inclusion problem. the approach was recommended by water proofing experts thornton tomas eddie, it installs a membrane under the sidewalk and into the interior of the tree wells. the existing trees must be removed so they can be applied to the inside of the tree wells. they have advised that providing outside of the tree wells at the roof of the basement would not prevent further water intrusion from the street so would not create further degradation.

in the success of this project, creating an active and welcoming front. the repolicement of existing trees is being perceived because creating a long water proofing solution are critical to the long term integrity of the property and the sidewalk. the owner will replace 8 of the 10 trees. two cannot be replaced due to sphere. this project all the in the council reinvitation effort and has support from the chamber of commerce and union. we respectfully ask that the board of appeals approve the

replacement and allow this project to move forward. and we have the landscape architect on zoom to ask any questions. >> thank you, i don't see any questions, so you can be seated. we will now hear from the bureau of forestry. you have seven minutes. >> speaker: good evening, i'm the acting superintendent just want to share a bit wond what is written in our brief. but the timeline is the applicant spoke to our inspect or and explained the need for tree replacement.

and that we would have trees, and triggered the protest which resulted at the hearing. at the hearing, the and our hearing officer was sent to that and listened to a lot of public comment. and the hearing officer a neutral person able to make the decision and then their review of it felt like the removal should be denied. and when i look at the hearing

decision, i see that we didn't really explain why there and you can see, in their brief that they didn't know why either. that was a note for us to be in a hearing order what is the rational and i would like to share we were responding, what we knew at the time and the information presented to us. now with the, the more expensive background and a lot of expert input on the necessity of water proofing both inside and outside of the tree planters under the sidewalk. that we get and we have negotiated with them about a

luxury tree replacement size. i also noted that muni signal pool is buried and i did reach out to mta and forester did earlier in the process. but i would be curious to hear if they would be willing to remove that light or signal infrastructure. you cannot see it, it does not really benefit anybody and it would be great to maintain a tree in that location. that's an option. but we do look tito save an present and preserve that opportunity. but, i'm available for any questions and thanks for the opportunity to share.

>> thank you, vice president lemberg and then commissioner swig. >> what is the quote unquote requirement for all of these trees to be removed? there is no ob sense of protest, in fact, we got more comment. what, i've seen the swaoem attic, i've seen the the inpraoution. from my intrained eye, it looked liner, so i want to see from a buff's trained. >> i'm not an engineer, i don't have the water proofing expertise but if somebody needed to quote the inside of those, i would understand the need to take the tree out. if you were to try to do anything to the inside of those

planters, it's really impossible because jam packed with roots, it's fascinating how many trees are supported by a four by four planter. and it's not something that you can seal, you would just drive buy and assume that these are growing in the ground, that's what it look like. and to peel back the layers and see how much infrastructure. if there were a way to do this and retain the trees, i think we would have gone with that and supported that. i think it would be feasible for the applicant to do. >> okay, and then my next question, is regarding the replacement, proposed replacement plan.

this body has been educated by your colleague mr. buck several times, on several cases, regarding the necessity of replacement plans to account for the kind of breath of existing trees. and it looks again to my untrained trees. for the location that they're in specifically. does this plan account for that and if so to what extent? >> sure. proposing to remove trees, the requirement would be to replace with a 15-gallon tree which is really small. : the fact that they're seeing

they would put more. when you put in a small tree, it establishes quickly and often passes up those bigger trees. but the coverage gives you the benefit of trees. but the 36-inch boxes are stress for that, transplanting process and can take a while to get established and growing. at the time *f planting, we will have a lot more trees to start with. and the, the another benefit of that, which i mentioned is that it was likely to be vandalized as a 30-inch box, you've got

the larger die am meter box. it would be another benefit to have that. >> more specifically is the number of trees, that are to, there is ten trees being removed accountser i forget, how many replacement trees are there? >> 8 replacement. and it's just that, there is no in lieu? >> we don't have the replacement, one to one but in the cases where they can't plant, we do require a in lieu fee and we use that to plant a tree somewhere else. >> where is the in lieu fee in this case? there is a minimum but there is also, we also, i can check but i think that's noted in here.

>> yeah, i'm looking it up here. if we do approve this, we would be losing, you know, well, no we're losing alle of them that are very large and very established and i don't want to lose, i want, i personally want an equal playing field if we're going to approve a plan like this, because there is major opposition to removing them at all. >> well to speak to your concern, one fascinating about these trees they're effectively turned into bonsai trees. the root volume, these trees if we were growing in regular soil would be many times larger but constrained by the soil volume

available. but they do have the side to the street that is open so they're getting a little more rooting, depending on what they run into there. i think the 32-inch box is the closest they can get. this is really maxed out and that's what prompted our interest into seeing if the mt a would allow us to save one of those sites, because if that signal light is not being used anymore, perhaps it would be eliminated and we could preserve that planting site. >> okay.

and my last question is, we have seen the photos but we have not seen connection between the 8 to 10 trees to be removed and the inclusion areas. i don't know what affects what, do you have any inside into that? that's a question i should ask for the appellant. >> at least from growing trees, i've seen where if you have a tree and a planter, you want to have a something that catch that water or grow it in a patio or the water that comes out at the bottom of the pot just goes off into the ground. and if they're going to have a jim or sauna, it's not a

location where you can have some water. if there are other locations, i would be curious, i think that's what prompted the concern. >> thank you, i'll pass to commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, i just have three questions, one is about the department's position. can you remind me was the position to oppose this? >> we approved the removal and then it was protested and the hearing officer made the decision to deny the removal. >> so when the hearing occured, your department was in favor of the removal? >> we spoke in favor of removing them, yes. >> and subsequently, the trees

are larger than there were at the same time or are they the same trees? >> they're the same, they've been kept at the same size for decades now. >> no, the replacements. i don't know that they've been selected like the individual trees. we determine the species though. >> i thought you were going to allow the 16 inch. >> sorry. oh the eyes requirement went from 24 inch to agreed upon. : >> so it was not included in the order.

so that's why i did ask our team what happens and they explained it was because of the input received at the hearing at the hearing officer was persuaded. potentially the work that we had done while preserving the trees. and that being said, about this, research into >> and the ones being removed do you have any idea how long they would survive? what is their expected life span? >> that's a good question. so perhaps 40 years old now, and we had one resent failure

on the corner where ficus failed. these trees are defect where a tree would have a taper, and these trees were going straight into the ground which is result of restricted area and roots. and as a result of the constraints, they're maxing out what they can do in that space. very tightly packed roots and overtime, we'll probably have failures, but, it's not a reason to remove them, we want to just leave these trees to

grow in perpetuity and continue to care for them with our street program. >> are you saying that they would grow in perpetuity as in forever? >> if there were no storms but there is not set life span to the trees. they could succumb to damage or something like that. shouldn't we expect that in some number of years, that the new trees would outlast the new trees? so we're extending the greenery by doing a replacement now? >> i think we're resetting the timer essentially. because the water company said the new membrane would last about 30 years. so we've got 30 years to grow

30 trees again and water proofing again. and we may be having similar discussion and replacing them again. i think that's one of the challenges of growing and containr urban environment. it's a compromise to get trees and that built unfa structure. >> thank you. >> commissioner swig. >> thank you. have you guys have come to an agreement, why is this not a housekeeping matter as the first item on the hearing? you all came to an agreement, is there any dispute between the city and the appellant?

>> is there a process question, i'm not sure. >> like you were here in the first item and it was a housekeeping item. >> oh i'm sorry, i understand. >> and why are we having a hearing on this when there is a agreement and a deal was cut between the department and the appellant? >> understood. so this case is in your jurisdiction so we're coming to you saying, hey, we've gone back and forth on our position on our trees and this is our our latest position, so we're laying this in front of you for your final. >> did they not hear them say

exactly to what they greed to and you agreed to. why is it not over? >> i could not speak to that. >> so here's are some questions that are raised in my mind. first of all, i. it's nice that the trees are being replaced. why is the burden of the and by the way, i'm in the business of commercial real estate and i have a few buildings in san francisco i should be deciding of the property owner if i was not biased but i'm not going to. why is the burden being placed on the city?

why is thed see being compromised because the property does not want to do an internal something internally that they could see seal their building internally? this is not settling well with me. i don't know that i can speak to that, that would be better answered by somebody else. >> item number 2, what strikes me here is i'm very, again, it's very add measurable and --admirable and all that stuff that the property owner is doing all of those improvement and i applaud that with the commercial office business, it's real tough right now, 35 percent in the city vacancy and

people are losing a lot of money and people are losing buildings and it's really really tough. that being said and we want to keep people in buildings as council described. however the results is really a means to be able to do a grander improvement and enhance the value of the property significantly as as a result of an investment no doubt. and i don't understand why the department is bearing all the, the negativity? you know, by allowing this, by saying, you guys try first and water proof the inside of your building and continue on with your improvements.

the paradine is, oh city, you pull your tree, you fix your pot outside so we can go ahead and improve our buildings which is more beneficial to the property owner than it is to the the taxpayers from my view. sxl allowing this, that 36-inch box is the compromise? why is the city not asking more. when the city is going to do a big gigantic favor to the over. i happen to be three blocks away on sphere street in my office residency.

i know that the storms of last year, where god created havoc, there is missing trees all over the place. this would be a great opportunity to filet few empty holes in the street canopy. why is this a simply we'll replace the two, because the two that we're not replacing, infringe on the wall. why is the burden being placed in the city rather than the property owner with this improvement? that's what concerns me? can you give me an answer? >> we're going to hear from counsel on this, we're going to hear from counsel on this. >> i do want to be careful, i

don't see it as favors being traded, i think if they have to do a project they have a justification for it. we consider what we can do to retain the trees. and the compromise, the larger. but the trees that are there now are not very large, they're medium size, i would describe them. and thed boxes would be smaller. but to reach that height in a come of years. but the trunk diameter would take more years to expand to that. i think for me, it seems

neutral, that we're losing the trees, replacing them. the trees that are being deleted will be planted elsewhere. but there is not an opportunity to keep these trees. i don't know that there is anything that we can do to perceive that avenue. >> they would be responsible for establishing the trees and after establishment, we would accept responsibility for them in perpetuity. >> is it establishment and ambiguity or three-year period? >> minimum three years.

if they called us out to say, this is your responsible, no we would assess whether they establish or not. lately it's taken for with the weather. if the tree was poorly watered, we would be able to require them to start over with another tree even if that was three years of watering for them. >> and technicality question related to what are the rules. when we had the parnasis tree issue, when there were going to be mature trees, because it would incrude.

it was not a one to one replacement and you just braupt the circumference of tree. why is not circumference not entering your conversation with regard to tree replacement. really the circumference triggers another requirement which you measure the circumference and you're replacing trees based on the size of the tree trunk. >> in our code it's a construction projects like this.

>> sorry for interrupting, pernasis was not illegal. >> right. >> they came in here, they said we need to remove the trees, we had a discussion about that and we allowed them to remove the trees. but the mandate from buff, was well, those are those are mature trees, when they're mature trees, that triggers not a one to one that triggers a replacement based on circumference and with that, i believe my i think there were 8 trees. yield 250,000 worth of new additional trees within the city at large starting in the immediate neighborhood. so when does the circumference

trigger? it does trigger and it was suggested why in this case are mature trees going one to one. >> for the pernasis case, the trees were assessed for their value and that's how we got to quarter million dollars in lieu fees and that funded planting many replacement trees. for construction it would not be required, it would have been required if you would have damaged them through trimming to the point that they would have to be removed. >> okay, a final question, you alluded to the fact that mta

has a non essential box in a spot. >> in my opinion. >> if we were going to move forward tonight and reach an agreement to do what you've all suggested, how do we push that that issue to mta so another tree can be placed back on our street where we are still at least 30 percent below our tree canopy. >> i cannot commit. i reached out to them, i know they shared it with the team that would make that decision. i have not heard back.

but we would revise this plan. >> thank you, commissioner lemberg, i'll let you take it from here. >> i want to answer, why we're not hearing this from post matter. this is a new hearing that we have before. >> for the post, the they emailed and said we reached an agreement, this is it and i didn't hear from anyone else. >> thank you for all of your claire fick a--clarifications, i learn something new every time i sit here. >> i just wanted to go back briefly to something i thought i heard you say, this is the time where i wish we had a

court reporter around. did i understand correctly that the trees that are being removed are going to be replanted elsewhere? >> if they can't be replaced onsite, they trigger in lieu fee, and i got a text. and the fee could be 2431 per tree. so we'll use that money to plant a tree and establish it elsewhere, two trees. >> i understand about the in lieu tree. i thought that's what i heard you say and i was unclear. >> they would go back to the water proved planters in the sidewalk. >> he's talking about the existing trees. >> you're putting new trees, you're putting out ten, we're replacing them with 8. the ten that are being removed,

did i understand that you said that relace thed. >> the trees themselves they would not be able to transplanted somewhere. >> okay, thank you. >> president lopez. >> thank you for your presentation. thank you for sharing the amount of the fee, how those fees feel low to me especially for a project of this nature. i'm wondering, is that ever, mean assessed, or assessed of a size of a project? >> yeah, good question. it's, it's not. we had our cost analyzed and we

look at the cost of the trees. the labor to plant the tree and the on going labor for to us water them quaoekly for three years to establish and that's how they arrived at the in lieu fee. >> thank you, no further questions, you can be seated. is there anyone else in the room that would like to provide public comment on this item. okay, please come up to the microphone. you have three minutes. >> speaker: thank you, i'm just a quick point, trees are living things they're not deleted, when they are taken out, they die. the decision to appeal, denial the removal what i don't understand, in what universe, does the that hold for weight

than the director's decision. it's nothing new, but if it is new, there should be a new process. i want to note that the department admitted they're not construction experts which leaves us the only the developer's that this needs to happen. as an aside, in deed not called for by law but it's a action plan. whether trees are young or old or growing in soil or boxes, it's still a net loss. and i'll note that more than two years ago, we made a settlement in this room, that made a solution on this basin issue and that still has not been implemented by the city. additionally, what message does it send to the public? i was at the underlying hearing, i got a copy of the decision when it was issued, the decision was no, you don't get to remove the ten trees. and then i figured it out,

later on that public works just pulled a 180 and fell in line with the developer. there are a lot of people in the city who are weary of corruption and have witnessed, we've seen the headlines. as somebody that people identify as tree guy, my email was filled. i don't think so. but what that tells me, is the questions go to this inexplicable actions. i believe that they may ask for of this developer and help green our charge -- ~>> thank you, there any other public comment in the room? okay, with move to zoom.

please go ahead, you may have to press star-6 to unmute yourself. >> hello commissioner, rincon neighbors across the street from the site. i totally agree with josh's comment. mr. swig, this is not housekeeping. the public does not like to see trees mowed down like this especially for flimsy reasons. they held a hearing and they were not vineds these trees need to be killed. there is an awful lot of assumptions being made here. you are presented with no expert testimony, these healthy trees, have caused any serious

problems. you have not one photo date or report on flooding or serious water intrusion. not caused by these trees. all you have are photos of staining, just what you would expect in any 58-year-old basement under the sidewalk which is adjacent to the street gutters and drain. no serious evidence. i would like to talk about precedence, 9 years ago i appeared before this body on appeal almost exactly the same.

enter trees over the basement and the building, it was also redecorating their sidewalk store front. which they thought was god's gift to design and they didn't want the big trees in the way. so they came up with every excuse imaginable to cut down the tree. and guess what, the board of appeals did not buy it, just the department is not buying it now. mr. swig and others denied it. muni signal is not important. so those two trees do not need to be removed. i believe there is space for two more trees in the northeast corner.

so let's get 12 trees going here. you can also ask them to do something and remove them. >> thank you, mr. ozgood. we will now hear from bunny, please go ahead. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes, you can speak up a bit. >> one, i wish i was as eloquent, i'm not a struck tower structural engineer but i am an engineer. it seems like the contractors are trying to minimize cost and it's easy for them not to delete them.

they're not being considered here. i will also say that even if they're not, willing to do the work to preserve these trees, why are they doing for the climate action plan? even if there are not basin, there is present for planting similar trees in the neighborhood or elsewhere in the city. agree with the other commenter that in that lieu fee seems ridiculously low, because i think you can only plant one tree. around the 36-inch box trees, that is giving a false impression paws that takes them longer to establish that it is better for the tree to start with a smaller one and let them dproe. try to preserve them as a first step. it takes a lot of work to establish the first tree. and then, i think commissioner

swig was asking a lot of really good questions about the motivations of the bureau to change their mind on the decision and, some of the answers from the bureau about the in lieu fees versus what is being considered? it just does not make sense to an outside person and it, i think the question of like yeah, is there something shady going on, it's really does not make any sense to an outside observer. so food for thought, thank you so much. >> thank you, we will now hear from john nolte, please go ahead you have three minutes. >> first the issues by wufnt commissioners, they're not showing. i would not see basements that were shown. but how many there were

actually then there. and where they're located because you know, again, they said the buildings is 48 years old. and also if they do it, they would have to do it again. it's like a wash, you're not doing anything, you're doing a temporary fix for 30 xwraerz. --30 xwraerz. 30 years. it's just a temporary and then you have to put another set in 30 years. i also have an issue with you know, i've lived in buildings and i know, i've seen the interiors of, of basements of buildings and i know that water comes in multiple ways. and just so we have the tree

bases that the water is coming from, is ludicrous. so therefore by saying it's only that is going to fix the problem is not correct when there would be multiple sources from where this water is coming from where the building or outside the building coming in to the basement and also because they want to use a parking lot and turn it into a faucet space. they want to do the cost of the community and not getting our fair shake at additional trees and necessary of business approval. thank you. >> okay, thank you.

michael nolte please go ahead. >> yeah, so i just had two comments because i agree with all the other public comments that have been said. that came to the point here. if the permit, i would luke to have the city attorney tell us why, the perm ut process needs to be can the permit process be start because it was already dealt with. and i would say that the seainger needs to uphold the denial of the permit period. thank you. >> thank you, is there any further comment? seeing none, we'll go to rebut the al. >> so the, the water proofing

experts are structural engineers so they're the most qualified to make the recommendations that they made, you have all of those they're on the website. the tree base sit on the roof and the basement runs under the sidewalk. so the structural integrity is also important. the solution is being a mon lithic barrier so it could stretch into the curve inside the tree wells all the way into the facade of the building protecting any water from coming in between the street and where the building starts including these tree wells. that will protect the property and the basement and the sidewalk. the consultants here give a

30-life here, because no can foresee. but our understanding is the most permanent solution that anybody can have. this is the solution being proposed because this is a solution that will give us the best shot of protecting the property for as long as anything can protect this property. this owner is looking to make an older investment and make drastic improvements to the realm, they take the trees seriously. that's why they agree to the larger tree size than before and we hope that you allow them to protect this asset. thank you. okay. thank you. we will now hear from the department.

mr. crawford you have three minutes to address the board. >> i think i covered things pretty extensive i don't have any rebuttal items. >> thank you, i don't see any questions at this time. you can be seated. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> all right, commissioners we'll start at the other side of the dais with commissioner swig. i'm not sure that the city got there full and just.

not going to happen. and now we've gone to the other pool, where it's going affect on the wealth, the benefit of our en vestment which is going to enhance the value of my building. and we've got to figure out figure out to stop water intrusion. and for that, there does not seem to be enough of a price.

i'm struggling because i didn't get a satisfy tee answer, you know this stuff pretty well. can i ask for your help please. >> mr. clipp you were actively involved in the parnasis heights what is the thing in applying the from your view, you're experiencing this and you're also a lawyer, you know, you don't forget stuff, the measuring of girth to set the penalty versus the one for one issue, especially when mature trees are involved. how did that kick in?

give me your point of view. >> with the underlying decision, in that case, they hadn't done that, they hadn't done the appraisal so the agreement that we reached was to follow the law to the extent that it could be applied there. and do an appraisal and that's whier where we got the 30. and nick, i hope i'm saying this right, the circumference when wore talking about the area, that's not law, that's a city recommendation, if you could and what the plan called

for was for the city to create and implement policies of preservation in development and infrastructure and only when trees could not be served, to apply. >> thank you for setting the table, you know your stuff. so nick, in this case, was that action was not an appraisal done to establish a value and why are they being, why are mature trees which are healthy which are can be sustained, they do not provide any public

harm, they're pretty good trees. why did the department not take the replacement route? >> i wish i knew this when you asked me initially, but colleague massaged me since you asked that and clarified that it was a development trigger. so the pro nasis project was considered development and in this case, this is considered maintenance where they're doing building maintenance. >> okay, thank you. now you just stumbled into it and walked into the poop in the street. >> i'm trying to clean that up. >> this is not a maintenance project. this is why i brought out the point that i did earlier. they said t they're going to

enhance the building, they said it. they're going to put in all sorts of school stuff. this is continue maintenance, they're building, they're not expanding envelope which is why planning is not here. you meader it, a wellness to enhance the quality of the building. so this is not maintenance, the roof is falling in because the trees are leaking and we got, we have a construction defect and we have to succinct, i would not be bringing this up.

this is new development, this is to enhance, an existing building which does exist. this is not i will not buy into it. i own part of a building that was built in the 1920s, that's an old building. given this testimony, they said it. why a criteria about maintenance being applied to a development situation and why is not the assessed value of the trees being taken into consideration for replacement? >> yes. so there have been a number of projects where i thought they would have a development trigger but it's a specific checklist that in this case,

they didn't trigger one of those requirement. >> can you read us the development trigger. >> i can share it but i don't have it. i'm not chris buck but i could share that with you separately. >> it does not do me any good if it's not during this point. we have to have that information at hand because this is the difference between, if these, if these trees, i don't know what these trees are worth because i'm not ann arborist, i know they're mature and healthy and i know that there is new construction internally, not outside an envelope that is triggering the need, not a maintenance thing.

not just one on one and what is the development checklist, i didn't see it references i believe in the hearing before and you didn't bring it today. how can i, this is my job right now to advise where i stand to my fellow commissioners. how can i tell my fellow commissioners black and white, i think that we should do xy orzbecause, fill-in the blafrpgs. because a development checklist has been, the development has not triggered, and but you can't give me that information. >> if we can consider development, i think it's in our interest as a bureau, because it trigger that.

i know in the review when we accepted the application, we saw to see if it met the criteria. so there is, it would have been caught right at the beginning. >> was it 2400 a tree? right, so if the a phrase al comes back on the 8 trees and it's 40,000 or it's 50,000, or 60,000, then we've walked out of here making a big mistake. okay, because the 2400 goes in the trees being asked to be replaced. and because of the maturity of the other trees, that goes into the other fund examine that replaces the other trees that were blown down. this is what bothers me, i'm not comfortable moving this forward because i think the department of public works may

have errored what we heard was a hearing that said no the trees should not come down. and that was the hearing offer, you came back and cut a deal and we're going to do one for one, but is it because the development checklist? oh i don't know what it is, i don't have it. how can we make a decision to support the removal of these trees when we don't have the back up to say, according to you know, fill-in the blanks. i've got a problem with this. >> the city attorney would like to weigh in. >> any further questions. >> i'm done but city attorney

wants to. >> receiver. >> the representative from actually this way nz receiver. >> my understanding this is a tree removal under public works code section 806. i'm not familiar with the pronounced case and the code section there but illinois recite what is required when somebody wants to remove a tree. and i will say that case may have revolve around the trees, where you get into other sort of issues. >> i'm familiar with that. >> so under, the code if the department grants a tree removal permit, it should require that a street tree have equivalent replacement value

than the one removed or in pose a in lieu fee unless it makes finding for waving and modifying this requirement. value that's what the code requires. >> i think the ambiguity here and the problem here as representative from dpw stated, this is the in lieu fee is because and the ability to move these trees out is because it's a maintenance issue. tied to a greater development point at which point, the gentleman said there is a

development checklist and clearly that this past development checklist. if you had a copy of the checklist would be very helpful and we can clear up this ambiguity quickly. the problem is that the checklist is not available so, so he can recite chapter and verse, why my suspicious or my considerations should be tossed. so i know what you just said and it did not answer any my questions. we don't know the ambiguity between the maintenance fees and he didn't answer it. so i'm not going to hog anymore of this time and i'm going to hear what the commissioners say on this subject. >> let's continue to vice

president lem bellinger. --lemberg. >> thank you, i'm fully supportive of any motion that might be made to increase the number of trees here. i think that this is almost criminally under here, considering the type of development, status of trees currently. i'm open to that as well, assuming we don't, i think there needs to be additional things added on to the agreement. although it does seem like the developer have come to some sort of groement that does not mean that we have to accept the

agreement and i appreciate the line of questioning from commissioner swig. i don't feel like in a good position to present an outcome but that's where i stand on this. >> i just have a couple of points and i share the concerns of my fellow commissioners but i have great hesitancy of making a decision based on what we've read and what we have heard. i think we runt risk of making the wrong decision in part because the department has not prepared, has not given us

enough information. one of the witnesses said what happened to the officer? we should have that. whatever it is, in writing, we should have that. and what is the responsibility of the department to uphold that decision. we are making a decision based whether the grantor deny an appeal to a decision that we don't really know it's there. the department has agreed with 100 mission street people on a decision. so i'm concerned about that and i'm concerned about run away feeling about wow, they can just pay more. this is not the era where we

say,--we are running the risk of putting a pinata and hitting it. it does not sound from the city attorney's res tation of the board that we have the ability to go beyond this, except as you elicited from the from the witnesses and the parties, it's development not maintenance. and i'm not, we heard the same testimony, i didn't hear the important for 100 mission that was development only. i read in the record in the on page 9.

that it was to share the structural integrity and the slab sitting below the sidewalk and forming the roof of the basement. in which case we don't know what rules apply and whether the development decides if it is maintenance and development which rules do they use? and given the further information, i'm, i'm encouraged by the but the creativity of my colleague, i'll be happy to hear what they have as ideas. but my preference is to have another hearing and have this before us and get some of the answers that we have asked actual low get the answers rather than try to get what the

answers are based upon what we have available. >> i'll chime in, before i do a point of information for teebehr, am i correct that we could not mandate a higher fee in the situation since the department does not have that power, is that correct? it would have to be a volunteer agreement? >> the powers have constricted by what the code would allow the department to do, that's correct. i'm looking at the code here and there are separate provisions for development projects, that what you're referencing?

okay, i'm trying to help the board for whatever road. this is a permit for removal for what the code there requires. >> exactly however, i didn't bring anything of this up. first and for most, i was around when we denied a similar project, period. and that was one case this is another. this is denovo. buff we've had a similar request and i was a voter--i actually forgot about that until tonight.

so it is denovo. the issue, i think i'm struggling with what commissioner transvina is struggling with, an insufficient presentation by dbw. i'm not being mean and nasty and not yelling at you, but it's not complete. the hearing officer said, no you cannot rment trees. which is consistent with our activities here? okay, then, and then, same concern is commissioner transvina. why did the commissionr officer say that?

unfortunately, you didn't bring that in. so we're here within an empty box where we really need some information. >> can i just, i feel you're going twice, can i go once before you go twice. if i can just finish. >> she asked the question. the second piece of it. --. >> do you mind if i go, i just had a very narrow question about what we had the power to do, so i would like to speak the order of the speaker and see if we can reach a resolution here. i think the points about, the lack of the hearing officers, record, whatever is available, i think that's a valid point.

and that categoryization is something that i heard. stated that deserves to be reviewed. with that in mind, and i see vice president's lemberg's hand up here so we can go to you in a moment. what i would like to understand is if there is availability particularly on the part of the permit holder for future meeting if we continue to this matter would you have availability for june 26 or july 17th to come back to us? >> president lopez you may want to ask, they have the order, they may not have a separate

decision outlining the basis. >> thank you. are you available those two dates? and is dpw available? so i would move that we continue to the 26th and if the represent from dpw can come to the microphone on this question of whether there is any further record other than the decision from the hearing officer on this matter that may be provided to the board. >> i don't think there is a separate document with that information, i think it's the, the order that had that. but if we have it, we'll we'll provide that, we can ask for this process behind that. and share that with you.

>> thank you, that would be my motion and also just for the benefit of of both parties if we end up in a place na is similar to the process --i think we feel the city got a bad deal here. with clarified that we don't have the power to mandate more trees. a three for nine trade, that leads to this commissioner

feels like more in line with what the city should be receiving in order to protect the canopy. with that, vice president lemberg. >> thank you, i wanted to say first, say we do have the order from public works, it's kind of scant as far as what was presented. i read it before the hearing and it's, it is very unclear as to what the reasoning is. but supported it and all things were denied and that's about it. try to get answered i'm not more, you know, ultimately, we

have to jurisdiction of this. whatever we want, regardless of what the hearing officer decided and you know, ultimately this order is stant as far as detail and i know, if the hole purpose of continuance is just to get potential testimony from the hearing officer as to what their what their rational was, but i think we're missing information here. i just want to make sure that if we're continuing this, that we're going to get more information and not just kicking the can down the road. and i'm not totally sure to ensure that, so that we're actually presented with more useful information next time we make a decision. what is would like to see is an

assessment. and i'm for getting as to the basil replacement would be for these trees. i would like to see what that before this. and if we're thinking to an alternative to what has been presented. that would be useful. but past that, i'm i want to make sure that we're setting ourselves for success. >> one thing i would like to add to the list, a resolution, more aggressive from just dpw and saying how about dealing the street light equipment. you have six weeks to resolve

this. going to mta and getting a yay or nay. on that box. >> well you know, it's not that difficult. hey man give me an answer, i saw this, you can tell maybe. with your permission, i like to add that to the list so we can get the final tree box. >> accepted if i can also request that we get further written testimony from the property owners to the issue of whether it's maintenance, or whether that matters. >> so that's a motion, i think

i'm missing a few items, so it's clear for the parties. i understand you want to get information as why the removal was denied by the officer. >> and that meets them in the form of any written materials. and/or comment collected. >> okay. and secondly, i understand commissioner swig wants an answer from the mta about the signal which affects the tree at the corner. are you asking whether the signal can be removed? >> this was part of the that was open-ended, we think that we can get a tree back in that

tree basin. we phoned mta, they have not responded. what i would like is then to reso many that issue so they can come back and say, mta said yay or nay. >> okay, thank you. and third, i understand that you want written testimony from the permit holder or excuse me, the appellant who is also was denied, regarding whether this project. maintenance versus development. >> it's the issue folks done by commissioner swig. as to whether this false on the development or the maintenance. whether the property owner, i

like the property owners views whether it's maintenance or development or matters. >> okay, was there anything else? >> yes, there is one more item from buff for them to share the checklist the development versus maintenance checklist. >> okay and sir are we going to allow new briefing, three pages, limited exhibits. >> vice president lemberg. >> can we add a replacement of the value. is that supportive? >> thank you step to the microphone. >> there is a basil area

replacement where you can measure, the basically the area of the the trunk how much you're removing and how many replacement trees would be required to offset that. it can be a lot just two became nine, you can see like that multiplier affect. the benefits that is it's providing and come up with a number of valuation, our tree inspectors are qualified to do that, we can provide that, so i think, if it would help to provide total appraisal values

of these trees to put that in a moment and then separately to tell you how many inches of basil area these trees have we can put that in the table as well. >> i think more info is better. >> that works for me. >> okay. >> if i i may my request for information from the appellant seems to have been met by the confusion for the appellant's attorney. can i ask her to express maybe there is concern. >> no, thank you. i just want to clarify on the question of maintenance. >> can you speak into the microphone. >> yes, the question of maintenance and development, it seems like what this board is

trying to get at, is there grounds, if the checklist could potentially put this project in category development versus maintenance or higher fees that could be collected to support tree planting elsewhere? is that the goal of the question? >> yes, it is thank you. yes. >> okay. >> thank you. are we ready? for the motion? okay we have a motion from president lope toes continue this item to june 26 for the reasons previously indicated. that motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> vice president. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0. and as i mentioned the party can submit a three-page brief

it's due thursday before 3:00 o'clock p.m. this is appeal number 24, a li versus building inspection. existing office space comply with nov number 2023-this is regarding permit 00242093 and we will hear from the appellant first. welcome, you have zen minutes seven minutes and we will not start the clock until he is set up. >> thank you for being here and hearing me at this hour. i daoel with anxiety and panic attack, i try to make it short and not very painful.

so i am appealing this permit that was issued recently that is suppose italy suppose to go to the director board of to the director's board hearing board. as i was promised, by inspect or kwame and i think, i want to start with just showing the >> computer? >> computer please. >> say that again.

yes, this is going through the fire wall. of the ceiling of the common area. this is the size of the installation that actually only serves one unit. if you look at the document, that was submitted, it's stated back in march 2015.

mechanical plan. to think as a history doing work without permit. director's, i don't know if i'm saying it correct, forgive me. i was checking for the vision that when this hearing is going

to be hearing so my voice can be heard. i have few emails that also is here if you would like to see them, i can just show you. that would be that would be exhibit 3. this is was asking them if there is awe date because every time i was asking when this hearing is going to be, they said it's yet to be scheduled. last time i checked the permit

was issued in february of this year, which i'm sure it was amount in the document that would stand out, i think that would be exhibit. number 4.

this is the permit that was issued. i think it was the gentleman that i was talking to. they said the permit has been issued and it's done and i can't do anything. and thanks to the board of appeal's office, i was well educated that actually i have time to appeal this. permit. i'm looking at the request of mr. olson.

i don't understand how to go through the process of getting permit to properly start a project and going through the planning department. this is not the only one. i'm looking at the date of proposal it is the date issued for estimate was, december first of 2014 and expiration date on it is march of 2015. and the acceptance that i see here it's, march 11 of 2015 which passed the date of documents that it was submitted.

i know that going back to. sorry. sorry, i've been at the hospital all day and i have difficulty to focus, i'm a service i deal with my own issues.

notice of violation was issued by inspect or behrgum. which is going to be on exhibit. >> you have 30 seconds left. there was violation which also

happened to disappear, mr. behrgum canceled his own notice of violation and said that after. >> thank you, that it's time. >> thank you, we do have a few questions vice president lemberg and then commissioner tras vina. >> thank you for all the time that you put into this and we appreciate you being here tonight. >> thank you so much. >> i want to, i want to try to narrow down a little bit, because the permit you appealed is for the legalization of the installation of a heat pump that serves a ground floor office space. i assume you live in this building as well. >> yes, we do.

>> so regarding the heat pump, it's my understanding from reading the materials that you submitted, that it was installed back in 2015 and it was done without a permit. to make sure that it was installed properly. so my questions is what are your specific concerns that you have with this heat pump specifically. >> yes, in 2015, i believe mr. olson was only allowed to put a white box being installed being installed on the on the garage

wall. sxl that was the only thing that was the scope of work that was suppose to be done in the watering. and later all of these pictures, it was added. taking space that does not belong to mr. olson and they should have gone through the planning development and getting all the proper documents and it's going to get legalized and after so many years.

also the contractor, so i think, if i go back to the exhibit one. this is the only thing that suppose to go. and all the the wiring is suppose to go all the way back. i just don't know the wiring is it coming from a commercial meter? or residential? these are stuff that was never discussed.

and residential unit. nothing, and i know this is not we are not talking about other topic but when i say, you see work done over 150,000 without permit. and this is suppose to bring the revenue and also affects people's life. very recently, i can't really skip this part because recently we received an email with less than 24 hours notice. there is going to be removal of

stucco in the building. and less than 24 hours. later, we found out that also needs permit which it's called no plan perm ut for removal. and after the work was done if you can just play the video right here. this is my neighbor apartment it's leaking into his living room, he's a senior citizen

he's not in good shape and i don't think he deserves that. and i brought this up, dbi has shown us double standard. this is tip of an iceberg. i'm not trying to use this platform but this is something really bothered me. and going back to issuing the permit after nine years and submitting the plans on the 24 and waiting on the last day and i don't know why you didn't go to the director here so we're suppose to go there and talk. >> so i, i appreciate everything you've said and i agree that the, that you know, a permit should have been obtained back in 2019 for this work. and also sounds like there may

be, there may be other work that has been done without a permit as well. and certainly, you are within your rights to make further complaints to dbi about any of that alleged work that was done without allegedly without a permit. i'm not making an opinion but if it was, dvi will investigate and if appropriate, issue a notice of violation on it. so i do, i do want to limit it just to to the heat pump because the only thing that we have the ability to do anything about. >> absolutely thank you so much. i am done with my questions for now but there will be more time in rebuttal. >> thank you, there are no further questions, you can be seated now. >> sorry, can you repeat that. >> you can be seated now, no further questions you'll have a chance to give more information during rebuttal.

>> thank you very much, i have the replay from the inspect or who refuse to come and inspect the same job you're talking about. >> thank you, we'll now hear from the permit holder, the permit holder has a representative here. >> hi son, walk hear you. >> hi there. so thank you for your time tonight. and i would like to say that i appreciate mr. shay fee bringing this to our attention. as of true by the hoa board at the time. i did hire a license contractor which is associated heating. he did install it per the plan, and part of that bid as detailed in what i submitted,

included the contractor obtaining a permit for the work. unfortunately they did not do that at the time. so i would like to apologize for that however i thought that was done and i should have followed up on it just to double check. for that i apologize, however once it was brought to our attention, we took prompt action, we have gone through every procedure that i understand is acquired. we've had all the appropriate drawings submitted and i believe the permit was even issued until it was, suspended or reconsidered until this hearing. so, i submitted everything else that i had to say in writing and i don't want to waste anymore time unless there are further questions. thank you for your time. >> thank you, did you want to address the courts sir and if you can identify yourself for the record, please. >> i'm new with this, good evening. i'm richard ca tell i'm the

owner of associated. i am the culprit, i'm responsible for obtaining the permit nine years ago. can't give you an excuse but what happens within our office but the ball was dropped and a permit was not taken. once we found about that, we stepped up and went right down to dbi take out a permit which is typically for our work and over-the-counter, i was told because of the complaint, they wanted plans and the architect had plans that mirrored what work was done. we were issued a permit, i paid all the permit fees, i paid the fines, i paid the deny alted. i called for inspection and told that the permit was suspended pending this hearing. everything that we did was

aboveboard, it would be to mr. selfie's benefit to have an inspect or come out to take a look at the work, it's been fitting, operating no complaints for nine years. all of a sudden there is an issue with the hb system. i'll ask you to reintate the permit so that we can get a city inspect or out and get dbi to take a look at it. and put it to bed so mr. shafty with rest at night knowing it was done properly. all the duct work that was put in 26 beige galvanize which meets one-fire rating, fire

clocked and, everything will be aboveboard and everybody can rest easy. thank you. >> okay, thank you, i don't see any questions at this time. this is the permit have anything to add, you still have 3 minutes and 222 seconds. --22 seconds, mr. olson. >> nothing further. >> so we will now hear from the building of inspection. and mr. prayer is with us this evening in-person. >> welcome, good evening, president lopez. i'm ne develop the deputy director. as you heard, we have a permit that has been pulled and we're awaiting inspection.

we issued the violation in time. and you just heard that the applicant followed through and obtained the permit. is all of these photographs we saw today have yet to be verified and if they are in violation, we will get them corrected. >> okay, thank you. i do not see president lopez has a question. >> thank you for your presentation. just for the benefit of the appellant and anyone watching,

we heard testimony about other issues outside of the four corner of the permit in question. who should residents get in touch with if they have other issues, you know similar to what has been described by the appellant? how can they bring that to your attention? >> thank you about that. code enforcement, wnt division is set up for sort of calls. as i look through the packet and studies she's other violations, i also noted that we had followed through with all of these at least the items that were brought up and we had followed through appropriately. with you but our code enforcement section is open for

those calls. >> thank you. no further questions. we will now move on to public comment. is there anybody in the room to provide public comment? okay. is there anyone on zoom that would like to provide public comment for this case? please raise your hand. >> he's your husband? >> yes. >> okay so you can speak during rebuttal not during public comment. so we are moving on to rebuttal if there is no public comment. >> okay, mr. bruno please go ahead. you have three minutes. >> i briefly spoke, i'm mark bruno and i live near where this building is and i'm a tenant of many years in northridge. so the question was asked who should tenant go to and i just

confirmed that the place to go is very simple, it's housing inspections services, they call them his, it's a department within dbi, it's not the department that gets all the attention but one that deals with tenants and one of the reasons that i've been come here are con skens to inspection. no in fact, it tells you, this is not for private homeowners, it's only for tenants and i deal with things like garage and leaking water and they do it all over the city. >> thank you, is there any further comment? i don't see any you have three minutes and mr. shafy, you can

share that time. >> i want to say, when when they brought the architect to have a plan. all the dates in the plan are in 2024. so that means all the jobs was done back in 2015. no one, decided okay, if i caught a whole here, does it affect the integrity of the building in case of earthquake, anything is it okay to cut through. this is just, how it is, we can't even do that.

and putting this giant fair conditioning system for 140 footage office where the size of this installation. i don't think it's going fit proper in the office. there could have been a better solution without damaging common area that they don't own. so that's something and i would like to share this time if i possible. >> okay, ms. shafy, please go ahead. >> thank you very much, good evening, and i praoern the opportunity to address you all. i think the major issue here is that in 2015, i was one of the board members who okayed this project and we were told in a walk through with sean that the

only thing that would be a pennant would be a white box that you saw a picture of. it didn't include the ducts cutting through the fire wall and ceiling, that huge silver box. so something changed in the nine years since we originally signed the contract to the work being done now. so what we're asking for is somebody come out and look at it and make sure that yeah, this is worth it and not originally and have all of that stuff hold back out and common area restored to its original state. >> that's what we're asking for. >> i do not see any questions at this time. so we will now hear from the permit holder. mr. olson, you have three minutes.

>> thank you, can you hear me now? >> yes. >> hi there so at the time of the work being done. i would like to clarify all of this system, the entire system was not installed in 2015. any one piece cannot work with another. further at the time, i don't know if ms. shafy was present and others were in a cardboard mock up was instructed and hung from the ceiling. this is in a utility room not in a hallway that anybody has to see the unit. that's why it was approved and why it was installed in this location at the time. further there are similar heaters that service the

residential above. they're individual heaters that are visible, this is in a garage area. this unit in question, that tk the mini split is in a utility room hence it being pull of utility equipment. >> thank you are you finished? >> yes. so we will now hear from dbi. >> thank you, i just wanted to clarify mr. graoun os, comment. it's because this in fact an office that is being affected which is not housing.

it would be recovered to housing if it was a tenant issue with the unit. there is nothing more to add, you know, the one thing that puzzles me a little bit. with many splits it's condenser the white box that you saw there. but i'm sure it was vetted and it will be inspected at the time. >> thank you. i don't see any questions so commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, any comments? or motion? >> sure i just, again i want to thank the appellant here.

i do hope that you've gotten valuable information and hopefully and also some assurances that this in pact be inspected as parcel of this process after the appeal is complete because they don't have the ability to do it now. on that note i would like to move to deny the appeal that the permit was properly issued. on that motion? >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is tend. thank you, this is item number

8, mark bruno versus department of building inspection. and we will hear from the appellant first. mr. bruno. mr. bruno? >> as you know, i've been here 7 times, 7 times. on the same address which is sometimes called 472 union street.

i live at 15 almost ally. it's important to understand that after this current permit was suspended, the building and permit owner, my landlord went just one day later after having knowledge of the suspension, how do we know that they had knowledge. and yet the following tai a saturday he did all of this work. there is more than one aspect it's my request for suspension of the permit which occured on friday march 8th and that was two days after first speaker

with alex here before you. because in front of me, at my apartment, appeared can i have the overhead please. this was the form of notice, you can see, oh yeah, it's upside down, perfect okay. this is what the items looked like that was quote notice giving to us. i'm here to do your swayser because the city required it. well the city may require it, mr. buscati and this is part of your package. when doing a stairway that reegresses. you must notify the people that

lives there. it's the law, it says right here in fact there is a whole page, if you atage that you received from me for this appeal, it's called the, it's application for work and it's just three pages and one part of the application is a notice form. and it tells you here from the county that you're suppose to give this notice of a certain size and put it up a certain amount of time before you do this work and you'll see, number 2 is adequate access are lacking for more than, 24 hours for more than 21 days. well this work took four days, the fourth day being after it was suspended and on that forth

day, it was a saturday. i had to go to the police, three times to get them to come to my approximately building, suppose ed low they were going to stop it from continuing this illegal work. and they were not able to and finally one of the police officers at about 3 was to able to do this. perhaps you didn't know this, that there is always an inspect or and officer on duty. so a very nice man from dbi came and here you'll see something that you don't have, something you don't have in your package which is the notice of violation that shows you right here, that says 3-9. march 9th that's a saturday.

all the saturdays and sundays that the rest us have lives in and buildings in. it shows on the complaint and on the continuation of this work on a permit it shows that you it happened on the 11th on monday. why? why doesn't it show you that it was on a saturday. they did it on a saturday. especially as called by the police at 2:30 examine took photographs of all of this. and the other thing the building got wrong which is very important to you as a practical matter. mr. bisyati tried to make this

permit suspension moot, moot. the building department came out and said on the 13th of march, four days later after he did this work, site visit. i just need the overhead. it's on. >> it's on now, right. this is part of the banister, you can use it or look at it or pass it around if you would like. the point is there is no man sters on my floor in the building. so how can stairs be safe. here are other photographs of the missing banisters, here it

is right here, it's missing. see, missing. he was stopped by mr. bern my landlord who was working illegal. he continued for five and a half hours until he was stopped by dbi. so again, real issue is here is that, he was required to give notice. he didn't give notice. this is the 5th time the same person has done work. and only the first time he's been actually caught red handed by the department. thank you. >> thank you, we will now hear from the permit holder

representative here today. thank you, you have seven minutes. >> thank you. >> speaking on of the owner of the property. mr. biscete is a long time plane --plane mechanic, he invested on properties and providing affordable housing at the lowest ends. so this is a passion for mr. bisceti to take care of his tenants.

this is just some puck tour and you can see a portion of the floorboard, part of the banister. there is a banister replaces, these are things that would not have triggered the requirement of obstructing, of notice for obstructing an exit. i'm sure you'll hear more about that. and you'll also hear from a tenant who lives down here. who has asked for a leader, linda asked that a friend read

her letter into the record because she is elderly and a bit traumatized by the actions of mr. bruno. the question really is, what is mr. brusketi suppose to do? he's trying hard to do the right thing and for his tenants enjoyment. he asked me to join his contractor, and a visit to the code enforcement division and the building inspection to discuss the notice of violation and make sure that we're doing everything as the inspectors wanted to see them. at this time, he can't get a contractor because his contractor get harassed by mr. bruno. i heard three different contractors tell me stories about being yelled at and

chased off and being told that they're trades men, it's not their job to deal with that kind of hostility but that is being expected of them in order to get the work done. i guess that's all photographs i've got. i'm going to reserve my comments for rebuttal if you have any questions for me now, i'm available to make them. thank you. >> thank you. no questions for now. we will now hear from dbi. >> good evening, permit services. the remarks i have as to the availability of the stairs during construction, especially when they're required as a

second exit for the occupants is that when work like this is required that the contractor restore the exit to the functional at the end of the day's work. shown the previous speaker here, the in useful order throughout the construction as well throughout a day's worth of work. if you can imagine the stair being replaced in its entirety that's when we would get into situation that you do not get an exit and maybe we would impose a fire watch to enable

the to be assured if there was an incident of fire. in regards to the 16th notification, mr. bruno indicated that we said the stairs were in good working order on the 13th. i was looking at the record and the notice that was generated on the 17th, clearly says in item number 6, at the stairway several parts of the staircase was damaged or deteriorated with members. so i'm a little conflicted as to why you know, he says that

the stairs were in good working order. at this time, i have no further comment or for my presentation. >> thank you, we have a question from vice president lemberg. >> thank you, i'm very confuse as to the chain of revents. what mr. bruno appeals and what is before us, is march first, building permit to correct a previous nov specifically on the back to repair the stairs in the back of the property. and then, mr. bruno just showed us a new nov for march 9th that says that same work was being done without a permit. what happened there? can you fill-in my gaps here for work being performed without a permit it appears that a permit was issued 8 days prior. >> yeah, i actually don't have in my record here, i apologize.

>> we didn't receive copies this hearing, so this is all new to us. i see the notice violation, investigation has revealed work being under as suspended as opposed to no permit. is that what you're referring to? >> the appeal was filed on march 8 and he claims that work was continuing. so we issued another nov. >> so the owner would have had noticed that the permit was suspended?

>> yeah. >> okay, that explains the discrepancy. >> that's correct, they had a permit but it was suspended. >> but it was suspended because mr. bruno suspended the day before. >> yes. that makes sense. what would the permit process be? >> when an appeal is, is under way, the permit is pus ended. we expect all work to stop,

right. in violation of the suspension. we went through with the items of violation, told them to stop. is there any work of this tun because of the appeal? >> there is none here on the written notice of violation. is there anyone that would like to provide a public comment? it's to the right of the podium, thanks.

>> i'm coming as the friend of linda and concern. she is elderly, linda pheterwits and health problems that's why she's not here today. honorable members of board of appeals, i live on the first floor of examine mark bruno lives in the third floor, same building. where we both lived for 30 graerz. --years. mark bruno has been harassing, ever since i can remember. on the week of march 4, a contractor and the team had been working diligently to repair the drywall on the backstairs which mark brown o reported to the city. most of this was caused by mark bruno hanging his dripping wet laundry. submitted all permit to

complete the work and the workers were repairing the backstairs, mark bruno would shout at them and yelling at them and constantly taking pictures of them like he usually does. even though the stairs were not safe. the morning of march 9, a saturday, the workers came back to complete the stairs. i'm 74 and very vehicle and praopg for open heart surgery. since the work couldn't be stopped, and office arrived and asked to leave because of a real emergency.

each time bruno asked who the sergeant was on duty. the fourth time i heard bruno screaming out of control at an officer sounded like mark bruno called 9-1-1. he was outside of my window screaming at the top of his lungs like at the officer like he does to the owner and workers and every one else. each of these officers. >> 30 seconds. >> speaker: each cooperated with dignity and patience, it's been over two months and the work has been halted again, my kitchen is a mess. the drywall is still there and long needed repairs are still waiting. i have my open heart surgery at the end of the month and i was hoping this would be in order when i came home from the order.

-- ~>> thank you, that's time. >> can you fill out a card for you and the author of that letter please. >> yes. >> thank you, is there any further comment on this matter? >> i was not speaking on speaking i'm mary and i have known linda, and she has told me she is grateful for bruno, i'm not sure why she turned. she has told me that if it was not for mark bruno she would not be. and she told me that she has turned on him.

she has always told me how much, how grateful she is for him. that's all i have to say. >> thank you, any further public comment? >> do you mind filling out a speaker card. >> we have her name. mr. bruno, you have three minutes. >> almost every time that i've come here, the other side, the landlord has refused to submit anything, i don't know what he's going to say, mr. bruno is a monster, he's attacking ukraine, he hates gaza, i don't know what he's going to say, he can hire a lawyer, he's hired a lawyer every single time. instead of hiring a lawyer why doesn't he give us notice? that's all i was asking for

this appeal of a permit. it says in the building department that if you do work that closes down a stairway for more than a day, you have to give notice and this was closed down to four days. to get back to something that joe duffy when linda wrote all the letter, we were all on one-page back in 2019, against the same landlord we appeared before this board and only mr. swig was there then. and joe duffy was then representing the department and said to, busgati who had just bought the building. this is in your file all of these people want is respect, and information about what is going on and a little caring tairg about knowing what you're doing. that's all.

when he tried to make an illegal adu, and in 2019, you said no you kpt do it that way. and plans to this board and this city that shows 7 occupied units when there are only six. and linda who my girlfriend who just testified and knows linda, there is a record that linda herself said, this owner of the building has a gun that he just showed me from his car, i had to go downstairs, this was in 2019, it's a police record it's not something that i'm imagining.

to say that he wasing an illegal unit, an adu. and all we've seen is a same kind of action. all i wanted is a form of notice of any written notice as required by the city, that's all. thank you. >> thank you we have a question from commissioner trasvina and vice president lemberg. >> if you're seeking notice, how does the appeal? what action would get you notice by this board? >> so i apologize, mr. pe rera

has told you, that different inspectors have come out and said that the project is not finished, so it seems that a fair solution is to allow to finish the project but first give us notice. i wouldn't call you if it was not 7 inches. i'm not going out and photographing things all he has to do is give us notice. since mr. pe rera has said that an inspect or on march 17th said that it's not yet complete work still needs to be done. then mr. bassgeti should follow through with the building requirement to give notice which is just a piece of paper to all the people who live in the building, saying i'm doing this work on the days, the

stairway will be closed and that's all. >> so you're not, you're not challenging the issuance here, you want. >> the issuance it's clear from seeing the description, you'll see the miguel, the kerter it says i will post a sign for 15 days and return. there is more to the notice than i suggested. it says you have to give 15 days. it's clear low the department with all due pekt.

>> tell me what relief you're asking for. >> you can either remove the issue, that the permit was not done properly. but give us notice, one way or the other, i think we all as individuals, linda her life, i didn't even know. >> i'm not asking to argue what is the relief. >> the relief. >> is upholding the permit with the conditions that they give notice, does that do it. >> it should have been required to begin with. >> what are you asking us to do? >> i think he should apply for the permit to finish the job and he should have to give notice. >> so your preference is to stop this permit and have him start with another one?

>> i don't care really what he does. every time the police came, i had to walk up the stairs. >> thank you. you've answered my question. i'm building on to what trasvina is asking. i don't understand, so as to what commissioner trasvina was saying, as far as reissuing the permit and requiring permit. it's already in there it's black and white as you pointed out. so it has an out. >> i have not asked my question yet. as my earlier question

indicated, i did not understand the procedure background of how we got here but now that i know that, you're brief is per plexing to me, it does not address the permit and things that have happened in the past it puts from a previous hearing but it did not address the march 1 permit. my question is why did you think that appealing this permit was the best outcome for addressing what you want to get done, which i heard you several times is getting this work done. >> and with a notice. you you've misstated that in the permit it's required to have a notice. it's not, the contractor with

passgeti's permission, checked the box, we are special we are not like the other builders this is one of the inspectors that came out, this is a man who like many people does not want to play by the rules. you don't have to give a permit, it's required. that's the problem. it was required. >> do you have any legal citation as to why this was required? >> yes, it says because right above on the special. >> you're right, i said that. >> on this same as part of your application, i had to go get this application because when i originally called alex, he said you better be careful on notice have you to check what the actual requirement for notice is.

you can get it it's there in a kiosk. it's a whole page, it's called notice to applicant. >> i'm looking at the page you're talking about, it very specifically says it needs to alter if such work needs to be done. was the staircase unaccessible to the building? >> yes, for four days. and i noticed in the letter from linda, she may not know because she lives on the first floor. she does not need it, she does not use it. >> but it actually says, if alteration work to displace was that part of it?

>> it was bt. : displaced or examples on this one-page. >> but the front staircase was not in question. >> no, it says. >> this is just the back emergency exits. >> it's not an emergency, we all use it it's the easiest way to get out of the building. this is the main staircase that we use to get out the building. it's how we empty the trash, it's how we get to union street which is easier to walk on. as it says in the notice for applicant to building posting required. >> would displace tenants but not inconvenience. >> you're look at a different page. >> i'm looking at the right

page, i'm done with my questions. >> they're lacking so it needs notice. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> jeremy on behalf of bus independent qeti, thank you vice president lemberg for that clarification. deputy director has clarified that notice was not required for this, i agree that it was an inconvenience that some guard rails were being replaced, some floor boards were being replaced but at no point did that staircase become inpassable in a state of emergency. that is there to protect tenants in case an obstruction that would trap tenants, that's not what happened here. what happened here is an amazing amount of diligence by

mr. bruno, to stop a permit for no particular reason. and that's been happening and linda really wants to get stuff going so she can get her place in order for when she is laid up, and mr. busceti wantser to do right by all of his tenants including mr. bruno, he needs to have a way to go, a way forward. he's still going to fix the stairs. do we need to stop for another 15 days to give a posted notice that the scares will not be available. the stairs will be available to see this repair through. i'm sure that i'm going to be back here on this property with

mr. bruno we have an application in to legalize that adu. to bring back despite. despite his comments, i will deny to the day i die, i am not an attorney, i'm a permit consultant i've been working before the board of appeals since the late 1980s i've been a regular of this room. and i'll continue to be so. the point is, we have to have a path forward to get repairs done when repairs need to be done. when bruno needs to let people do the work that needs to be done on this property. if he needs some sort of notice that is exceptional and extraordinary even beyond what is required by code, he's going to have to let the contractor that are arriving to work know

that he needs to know exactly what their permit is and what their scope their attempting is work has to be done, old buildings need constant care and we're prepared to give care. >> we have questions from commissioner trasvina. and lemberg. >> you say you've been in board and you've been here longer than us,. ?ul >> all of you. >> can you assure us that you can provide a brief because our work needs to get done. >> i can do that, with this appeal, i heard about this last week from mr. busketi who was planning oncoming but his property manager but he was

agitated and upset and it's affecting his health so i told him i would do this for him. >> i appreciate that you're doing this for compensation and partnership or whatever. but we do need a brief. >> i'll keep it brief. >> i second everything that commissioner trasvina. >> knowing that you have an appeal stop the process, why are you not going out your way to communicate what is going with this been with the tenants of the building, and i'm that's not for mr. bruno i'm talking about all of them. >> thank you for that question. the approach that we've taken is to be proactive to with the

inspectors so there is absolute clarity about what is expected to comply within notices that have been written. we're trying to correct that with proper oversight. in terms of your request that better notice be given, i will agree to see to it that gets done. >> you know, my goal is to its obvious that the building has issues i'm not going opine but you're trying to fix those issues and it seems that the best path there is open and honest communication.

i think it applies especially to this report. >> anything further from dbi? no okay. commissioner this matter is submitted. >> thank you. commissioners, discussion or motion? >> commissioner swig. >> motion to deny, sorry motion to uphold the appeal and issue the permit with the necessary caveat it seems that proper notice be provided to the tenants. for the construction. even though that is unnecessary, i understand, looking at julie waiting for her to say but it's part of the

game. >> you want them to put a placard is that clarified. >> written notice, posted written notice, be made in tandem with the issuance. >> before we vote, we'll turn to vice president. >> i would like to suggest rather a 15-day period which seems accessible we reduce that to 48 hours. >> fine. >> because appropriate notice does not mean anything from a legal perspective. >> thank you for that amendment, that's why it's great to have four lawyers on this panel. >> at least 48 hours to begin. >> before it's to begin. >> okay, and what is the basis of this motion? >> that the, that the permit is being properly issued however

there is a pattern of not providing adequate notice to the tenants of the building. so on thao motion, president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner tras innocented vina. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> that motion passes 4-0. they issued a notice of building. >> is granted. >> granted with the condition. >> with that, we are adjourned. thank you.