Continue one of the appeals with the opens consent well have the parties to speak to that and decide whether the case will be heard this evening youll call for that reason item 7 cindy family trust vs. The Planning Department properties on green street protesting the issuance of august 7th to an integral alternative permit from three to four units on two on the east side horizon addition of fourth floor master suit mr. Sanchez start with you and commissioner president lazarus 3 minutes. Yes. 3 mens. Thank you Scott SanchezPlanning Department the apologizes were asking a continuance to address those two issuance one in the issues with regards to ceqa a demolition for purposes of California Environmental quality act the permit holders brief help heaped to address those questions but needs additional time to review that and Additional Information from the project sponsor a dwelling unit the summer that requires a conditional use authorization so a continuance allows the project sponsor so go through the conditional use process or theyll not like to pursue those those are the reasons for the request for continuance thank you. Okay. Well hear from the permit holder then. Thank you. Im sorry 0 with you hang on for just a minute ive hired reuben, junius rose on my own personal project their representation will have no effect on my decision today. Okay. Thank you melinda reuben, junius rose im here on behalf of the appellant plaintiff asked for additional time we were informed by planning today requirement for a portion of the work so the appeal is not readies at the moment and ask for a grant of a continuance thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the appellant and commissioners my name is Mary Gallagher i very much appreciate the deserve for the problems with this project, however, i believe there is a 0 problem that being continued there are several first of which additional problems had will be issued the Zoning Administrator is unaware it it will be helpful to be deliberated on and second a big part of this case about serial permitting and how serial permiters are treated in this city of a free pass to fix whatever is wrong with the permits i propose to you tonight well be explaining in further detail not the appropriate means to fix this permit and we can technician fix it about by a mean forces the entire project to go to the board of appeals i feel it is important to hear that argument tonight. Public comment on the issue of the continuance only . Okay. Seeing none commissioners you can entertain a motion or not. Is this ordinance on the d u m retroactive . The law of the day given the permit is not finally issues subject to the interim controls and briefing the appellants remarks of this item is continued well welcome additional comments. Mr. Sanchez a how much time. In discussion minimum after the november 4th hearing whatever on the calendar. November 4th is the cu hearing hearing. Theres been no place schedule but informed of this today so continuing it to sometime after the fourth gives them time to file the application or decide they no longer want the cu. Curious whether the mr. Larkin is working hard. Were always workingclass wouldnt we want the outcome of the cu. It can be continued but if it goes to the process pursuant to the cu not appeal able to the board of appeals so the appeal will be vacated at this time because this permit will be pursuant to the cu from the catch22 is heard and grasped but additional one of the reasons additional time to get to the root of all those questions. I would recommend we continue to the call of the chair. Any future discussion . Okay move that. Move to continue this to the call of the chair. Commissioner fung a particular action or decision that will trigger returning to the board with just the cu question being answered or other. Other permits probably, maybe appealed at some point so im not exactly sure. Okay. Okay. So then a motion from commissioner fong to continue this to the call of the chair on that motion. Commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig that motion carries and this matter will be moved to the boards to the call of the chair calendar well return to the regular agenda and im trying to see from the item number 4 which is the snowing case not ready move to item 56 that is a hearing request on broderick street the board get a letter from the appellant for the case which was decided on december 16, 2015, the board voted with commissioner wilson descending e servant the variance the 5 finding under the planning code have been meat the permit holder is Michael Jagger for the roof stairs and new stairs on the 2 and third story dwelling i minds president has as disclosure to make. I reviewed the matter and prepared to hear the rehearing request. Thank you very much. Well start with the query requester you have 3 minutes. Do i need to fill out a card. Weve skipped it because one of the parties have not arrived. You can do it now or not at all. Board members last time i was in connection are ms. Goldstein our mailing list my name explicit show up on it the next morning i went to the Assessors Office within 60 second it showed you my family owned the building and since 1993 when my folks passed away no reason why our name should not have appeared correctly on this therefore according to the rules weve never been notified of the preapplication middle east meeting to the neighborhood and the single most important issue the notification to reach the owners where they live not based on postings or any other method except where they live weve not had that weve neither had a meeting in 2013, the project sponsor appealed to the building inspection for a vaurnls in order to build a deck he sent a letter the deck will be identical to us in the short vicinity we support it he sent in the letter and thereafter abandoned his request and went on to build a stair to occupy the whole backyard we had a hearing and thereafter in touch with the Mayors Office reof the rules were not followed when wrong information is submitted by the project sponsor in all the packet the only ultimate for the permit to be recess he sent or revoked weve not had a had an at a hearing when we were informed the city Planning Department staff they told you theyll extend our 311 notification i accepted our questioning requester for a variance rehearing held subject to the expiration of the 311 notification the 311 notification expired we were requesting you suspend the permit and in the association was not informed of hearing and the Mayors Office contracted mr. Ray and he respond a new procedure will be instituted whereby a copy of who sent the notification and who was informed were in contract with mr. Ray, in fact, what happened is the rules were violated and the only course for the city Planning Department to suspend or revoke the permit subject to our being heard and theyve. Suryour time is up thank you. We can hear from the variance holder. Heres my cards actually. Dear members of the board of appeals im not sure what to say the appellant submitted a lot of information that is false concerning the whole backyard we submitted the plans with additional letters that have been signed off on to have a hearing is considerable only if new evidence was from september 16th and manifest injustice i dont think anyone of those cases is that case the appellant asserted it didnt receive the notices, however, the sponsor put forth evidence in the brief we actually had substantial prior notice and involved in the project and consult and signed off prior to the submittal and reviewed the plans with the other neighbor and resigned off on the notification as required appellant cant assert no notice not september 16th notice of hearing as appellant is the party that filled the hearing request and showed up at the original appeals hearing sponsor as repeatedly offered to meet with all neighbors especially with the cal poly association theyre the preliminary mandate in agreement with the sponsor and appellant based on the history of this case appellants awe certification they again receive notification is false and the conception of 2012 first approach by the project a great personal effort and cost repeatedly and diligently with the appellant on this over several years as evidenced by the emails in my submitted brief and appellant signed off clearly in writing to sf planning and verbally several times on the submittal about the stairs so no variance process is ever perfect but in this case we spent a tremendous amount of time exempting and signed off and you know were obviously not sure of the motivation the deck is consistent with the appellants deck and the only difference is the hoax of code compliant stairs that is far away from the appellants property as soon as possible h as possible im available to answer any questions thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez anything. Any Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none commissioners, the matter is submitted. A couple of questions perhaps Legal Council may want to weigh in this board cant take any action related to the hearing request secondly, should a rehearing be granted the permit is not stated. The only thing before the board is the variance decision. So i guess ill starter i partnering or personally feel that the notification is extremely important mainly so that the people that are notified can participate in the process i believe this has been before us many times and the last hearing this was thoroughly i believe that the appellant in this case has really abused the resources and this valuable system we have here in San Francisco. I also believe that the threshold of manifest injustice has not been met. Make a motion. Technically proven that the least based on the documents i saw he didnt receive written notice obviously he attended and prepared at the hearing itself and then and provided quite of response the question he was going to ask that their rehearing should be grant is whether the information he has is going to change anything we discussed the variance discuss the project and its impacts to great length. Ill remind the board the variance hearing is an integral opportunity to present a variance hearing is a notable hearing it is heard and reviewed by the board the parts of procedures then have an integral opportunity to present the argument to the board. Ill make a motion. To deny the request for rehearing on the grounds that manifest injustice was no manifest injustice. Okay so we have a motion by the Vice President to deny this request on that motion commissioner fung no. Commissioner president lazarus commissioner swig. Okay. That motion does carry with a vote of 3 to one and we will then move on to item number 6 i think this is parties to item number 4 the permit holder is not here so item 6 appeal that an erratic with the urban forestry property opens Mission Street protesting the denial on august 16th of a tree remove a request to not plant 5, 60 inch boxes at the subjects property well start with the appellant that has 7 minutes to present their case. Okay. Can you go to the overhead. My name is patrick schizophren thank you my name is address the commission up to three minutes. Kennedy the developer as the that an realistic a Student Housing project that has was implemented in july of this year and now houses 4 hundred students from the compensatory of music and the California College of the arts i had an integral informational pamphlet to give to the board that shows the project. I dont think we need it thank you. On the overhead screen right now that or i was in front of this board almost two years ago this month on an integral appeal to remove 3 trees in front of the property that had to be removed in order to make way for the new utilities water, power, phone and others in front of the building and which was grand by this board and incorporated into its condition of approval that appeal a requirement to plant 60 inch box trees in front of the the building when we designed lets see is this up on the screen when we designed the utilities and installed the utilities. Sorry ill have to interrupt you were getting fluttering on our screens wait one moment didnt show there but on our individual. Can you try to darken the screen with the overhead there. Yep thats better thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. When we insult the utilities that is shown here in the purple boxes on this plan we found that they interfered with the installation of 60 inch box trees and we concluded on 36 inch box trees. The 36 inch block trees are shown in those two paragraphs the difference between a 36 and 60 inch box tree is according to the landscaper a difference of 2 feet so the prospective in front of the building is the difference between the yellow line two feet t the handicap department of public works also required us to put in a 2 foot wide strip along the curve of the building that made handicap assess from a car easier and was a requirement for their condition of approval of all the improvement in the rightofway at present everything in the building has been approved but we have one last condition for your certificate of occupancy to sign off on the department of all over the on the Landscape Design the combination of the two foot requirements for the access from the street and the presence of those 4 large utility boxes made it impossible for us to put in 60 inch box trees in that location we submitted even though revised plan to the department of public works and to planning and planted the trees when it came time to you should add that even though the original. Project only had 4 trees we planted 9 trees overall in the project on the locations on the 3 sides substantially we went to the department of all over the for a final sign off on the building to get a certificate of occupancy required by our bans they said we couldnt get permission to put in 36 inch trees without coming back to you thats why they denied our application the combination of the requirements from the department of public works and handicap assess and the necessities to be putting in large new utilities in the in front of the Building Made it impossible to put many 36 inch trees weve intellectually learned from the landscape installer jensen landscaping theyve never put in 60 inch box trees 36 they have or less put in the project manager in the plaza but they said they never put in 60 inch box trees it is an inaccurate for box trees that large our professor at the California College of the arts wrote this letter in which he said to plant the 60 inch in this location requires power concrete on top of of the you think unimpacted tree it sets the tree lover and eventually leads to rot and tree death not physically fit into this location a thirty inch box tree are the absolute best choice ill noted recommend anything larger than a inch for a site weve fulfilled the obligation to landscape the street that is con defy to the goals of the department of urban forestry and the spirit of our acceptance so that condition two years ago and as you can see if you walk out the building over here the trees are large their substantial, and they fulfill the mission of humanizing the stripe it was physically impossible to remove those trees and put in a 60 inch box tree without shutting down the building that is a very difficult thing to do given the 4 hundred new residents i might add that is the first new Student Housing in San Francisco with either the San Francisco compensatory of music and the college of arts has built in the city theyre quite happy im asking you that the boards rise the the condition two years ago and allow us to keep the 36 inch trees in place thank you. I have a question. Yes. So you went go ahead and planted the 36 inch trees. Yes. Why was there not discussion with the department or dpw or whomever before you, you went ahead with the conditions. We submitted the plans to dpw and the city and none ever got back to us on that was a physical impossibility to put in a 60 inch tree we wrote a letter stating this to dpw and the Planning Department and public works we laid out that design we showed you and said it is physically governmental for us to do that. I dont think you answered her question why did you install that he was the change from your permit without approval. At the time he did that we were under a tight deadline to finish the building so the 4 hundred residents could more often on august 1st no way we account submit for an integral appeal stop construction of the project on the front of the building and delay the openly of the building given the constraints that were encompassed by the two schools that had classes of 200 students coming. Im not not getting this but not installing the trees they wouldnt be able to more often. We had to finish the sidewalks tolerated to get the department of public works to sign off. Was the cut off the same and 60 franchisee is much larger and would go into the same area that were required by public works for public assess the two feet wide step auto area on the curb. Okay. Required by the and no, go ahead. What was the size of the trees remind me of the trees removed prior. They were 1 or 16 foot trees they were bigger than this probably we removed all the trees on the 9th street side they were dying but those other trees had to be removed because there was footings left over from Mission Street construction of hundred years ago that had to be removed were embedded in the area around the trees too so so i want to clarify this was only penthouse at the end of the project. Right when we were landscaping pg e and the department of public works sizes our transforms and other utility as you can see in the purple drawings here we found we couldnt put in 60 inch trees. Wasnt that scoped out in advance. Well, actually in the deity the requirement by the department of public works to put in the 2 foot handicap assess areas on the center the three was not something we casa verde considered two years ago. Thats this area right here. Okay most of the the questions. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bucks. Good evening, commissioners chris bucks urban forestry with the San Francisco public works the de