Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 3, 2014 4:00pm-4:31pm PST

4:00 pm
>> is there any public comment on this item? >> i don't know if you want to wait for mr. duffy? >> yes. some questions that we want answered. >> okay. >> >> mr. sanchez do you know?
4:01 pm
>> commissioners, structural engineer, we used this last permit as a house cleaning permit as well. it is a series of violations from the past, one of them was dry rot, repair, and we wanted to include that response of the nov and actually put it as part of the list of items that we were going to take care of the roof deck and the parapet and the extension of the retaining wall and the patio and the response for the nov which is the dry rot repair. >> okay. >> >> i have a little bit more information this time, the original permit was actually to comply with the notice of violation and so maybe our staff saw that that violation was standing until all permits are seeupd off and added it on this permit as well, there was a notice of violation, it was probably a previous owner, but he did not say that but i imagine that it may have been a previous owner, and when we see
4:02 pm
a violation on there we like to reference that as much as we can and so when we sign-off on the jobs we abait the violations, i don't think that it is anything that i would worry about, >> do you know what the violation was for? >> work without a permit. >> yes. >> that was for dry rot repair. >> no there was work on the inside of the property and a deck built, and at the back, i believe, and it was a few things on the notice of violation, but when you see a bigger permit like the 2011 permit, that is over 360,000 job, that work is going to take care of the violation, it is probably going to rip some of that work out and probably going to tear it out and redo the whole property and it looks like a substantial remodel and so you are dealing with, and taking care of something from the past on a good, on a big
4:03 pm
permit. so, that is what we do. >> okay. >> it was never addressed by anyone else. >> okay. >> thank you. >> you bet. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> based on what i am heard i am not inclined to grant the request of the requestor. >> commissioners, i am of a slightly different opinion. >> okay. >> the normally i would have said that the time to appealed would have been in the first issuance of the permit, however, when you look at the photos and you look at the 311 drawings, there are quite a few differences. >> and receiving no notice means that they have no opportunity. and so, i think that he deserves his day in court.
4:04 pm
>> motion? >> i will move to grant jurisdiction that there are differences between the 311 drawings and it has actually been constructed on both the roof plan and the elevations. okay. >> we have a motion, then from commissioner fung, to grant this jurisdiction request. and reopen the appeal period. >> on that motion, president hwang. >> aye. >> hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> honda. aye. >> the vote is 5-0 and the jurisdiction is granted and mr. mariano has a five day appeal period which ends next month to file this appeal. >> thank you, we will call item
4:05 pm
4 b, which is two rehearing requests, subject property at 605, 811, and 840 gon sal les drive.letter from julian lagos, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal nos. 13-130/131/132, lagos vs. dpw buf, decided nov. 20, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold all three permits on the basis they are code compliant. permit holder: parkmerced llc. project, 1st permit: removal of one (1) tree with replanting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181658. project, 2nd permit: removal of one (1) tree with re-planting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181659. project, 3rd permit: removal of one (1) tree with re-planting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181660 >> mr. lagos, you have nine minutes to present your request. >> thank you, director goldstein and good evening commissioners, my name is
4:06 pm
julian lagos and once again here on behalf of our community and our trees and as you were here a month ago and you had to hear what we had regarding the preservation of these three trees and we have discovered that there has been other information that has come forth since that hearing and it is in regards to the conflicts of interest that have been discovered by myself and the number of residents and park merced regarding the city's conflict of interest with the city. and we have discovered that there are two contracts that the city has with this company, and which we believe poses a conflict of interest. and these two contracts were
4:07 pm
awarded this year, by the city at the recommendation on my add by the urban forestry council for which miss short who is going to speak tonight in her difference, sits on. one contract, is given to arbor well for $435,000, back in february. and again, in september, this year, a $210,000 contract was awarded to arbor well and none of this information was disclosed to this board. nor was it disclosed at the initial hearing back in august to the rehearing officer in this case and so we believe that there is a conflict of interest and a violation of the ethics code, of the city and council of san francisco. and we believe that this board can take action on it and can take disciplinary action,
4:08 pm
towards this agency, and its employees for failing to disclose this information. and that we believe that this relationship between the city and arbor well goes back beyond 2013, we have found information that the city has been doing business with arbor well as far back as 2009 when they okayed some work on behalf of dpw the department of public works to remove the trees up at the cpmc campus and so we want to bring that to your attention and we believe, that there is grounds, for rehearing on our request. we believe that you should hold this agency responsible for failing to disclose their relationship with arbor well, in the contracts that were awarded involves a removal of 144 trees in golden gate park
4:09 pm
and we heard one of the managers state on the record at the last hearing that he does not make any money from removal of trees he is making over a half of a million dollars for removing trees for the city and county of san francisco. we believe that there is a major conflict of interest and we believe that the body has the obligation and the duty to address that conflict of interest and to grant our rehearing. i will introduce a co-on the deal, and she is with the park merced and has a background in environmental policy law and we will be presenting here the case for the conflict of interest in this particular item, thank you. >> good evening.
4:10 pm
most of park merced inhabitants live there because it is a beautiful and peaceful and a true luxury in a big city. to destroy this treasure for profit is a malicious acts, this makes us and me friends think that this is not the first time, how can we know that all of the previous maintenance tree issues were honest and ethical. conflict of interest arises in a situation which is actual, potential or perceived conflict exists that caused undue with constitutional responsibility and such as performing research results etc. and this is the case here. and in today's conflict of interest, i want to know about the environmental impact report and eir shall be repaired when there is serious public controversy and this is not just about trees, but it is about everything going on in
4:11 pm
the park, including the project to tear it down, this iconic, only two of a kind, in the west of the mississippi garden of apartment complex, where the environment is foremost to be preserved and protected in these days. this is not something that we take for granted it is a prize to be protected. last time someone was discussing park merced as available land. this land is just as available as his own backyard. we live there, we love it there. and we want to protect it and there is too much unethical controversy surrounding this. the eir, this that is a big problem and the three trees are just a image of the whole problem going on, when a project has the potential to degrade the quality of the
4:12 pm
environment or eliminate the important examples of history and the prehistory and the park is a important example of the history and because there are only two such iconic gardens west of the mississippi it needs to be protect and preserved, when it has the potential to achieve the goals, to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals, this is seriously damaging our quality of life at park merced to take down those beautiful houses and put up a project that has no place there, there is no room, the transportation is not ready for that, there is not water to go around for everybody, and this is just too many and i have not seen the eir but i am sure that there is a lot of conflict theres and we cannot this less, when a project has possible
4:13 pm
environmental effects, which are individually limited but considerable that will effect us all and this will take 30 years and basically we are going to are surrounded by huge amounts of pollution and noise for a significant amount of decades, when the environmental effect of the project will adverse effect on the human beings, this is bolting directly and incorrectly. by constantly and unnecessarily cutting down the park's tagged and majestic pines, the bureau of urban forestry is making the long term impacts on the lives and the environment, this is not good for a garden apartment complex, this is all about preserving the environment not just going in there. and cutting down and thinking that putting a small tree instead of a 60-year-old tree is going to make an impact. it does not guarantee that will reach the majority, one cannot let a child provide the work
4:14 pm
adult. they have failed to provide the eir, this report is mandatory because it prevents harm to humans and the environment, failing to disclose the work, or provide the reports from the eir is a failure to disclose the pertinent information and this is clearly a conflict of interest. how long this conflict of interest existed i would like to see the history of who choped the trees down and who, there should be clear and precise reasons for altering the ground, if not there is no reason to touch the trees, if the trees are touched without the reason that is fraud lent and retribution should be considered, thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the permit holder now. is there anyone here representing park merced. okay. and then we can hear from the
4:15 pm
department, then. >> karl sharp bureau of urban forestry, just a couple of points that i don't want to make, we don't support the new hearing request and there is not new information that is per nant to the case, i would like to correct a few items that were stated. mr. lagos record was any documentation associated with these proposed removal and including all that they have had with park merced that was provided to him and not only did i not have any documents relating to any contract that the rec park may have with arbor well, he did not ask for them and i would not have had anything to give him. however if i had known about this relationship, between recreation and the park department, and arbor well this really would have no issue on our bearing of permits, the permits are issued to the
4:16 pm
property owner, they can hire whoever meets the guidelines to do the work, as long as it is done in compliance with the city standards, also in the dpw actions are unrelated to the what the parks department may do under its own authority over golden gate park and also note that i am not aware of any recommendation by the urban forestly council to award any contract that is not under the council's purview, that is not something that is done. i don't think that is happened. >> i took my seat and i have not seen it happen, i do not believe that there is a conflict of interest here and i think that this is a red herring and i would ask you not to grant the rehearing. >> i have a request. >> sure. >> so, i do remember the
4:17 pm
contractor stating that he makes no money. and the contract with the city and council, he is profiting? is that what his contract s is for removing trees? >> i honestly do not know the details of the contract, it is a contract with another city department, i have not seen it. i presume that it does exist, i don't know if it even exists >> that would present a problem, because he actually presented that he makes no money off of cutting trees down. >> i don't want to speak for him, i think that he speaks about he makes more money on a pruning verses a one-time removal. >> they are not here to represent. >> okay, thank you. >> miss short. >> go for it. >> excuse me. >> thank you. >> i assume that the bureau does hire tree companies on occasion? >> on occasion, we have over own crew and most of the woshlg is the dpw crews and we have occasionally contract. >> the rfp process and there
4:18 pm
could be standards and etc.. >> that is right. thank you. >> i don't have any question any more, thank you. >> i want to see if there is anyone here representing park merced and there is none and is there any public comment? >> good evening, commissioners my name is cathy and i am a 60-year resident of the park and i was in the park yesterday, and i saw two or three arbor well trucks removing an enormous tree on this street that goes between sunset boulevard and 19th avenue and so they are removing trees for the city, thank you. >> >> is there any other public comment? >> seeing none, the matter is
4:19 pm
submitted. >> i have a question for mr. lagos. >> okay. >> yes. >> your brief, mentions the contract with or for tree removal and golden gate park. >> yes. >> and it mentions something related to cpmc. >> which departments, you don't indicate specific departments, that the contract is with? >> well, the contract with the golden gate park, is, there was, i believe, done with, and rec and park. >> and the contract at cpnc was done at the department of public works. >> yes, dpw. and that is what i was able to glean from my research. okay. >> thank you.
4:20 pm
>> and i have a follow up question. >> yes. >> where did you get that information? >> i don't see any proof of these contracts existing? >> on the internet. the contracts are in the minutes of the rec and park meetings of february of this year and september. >> did you attach those to your brief? >> no. i didn't. for the record, they are in the minutes of those meetings. >> and just as a follow up to that question, was, and you discovered this after the hearing? yes. >> and was there anything preventing you from... it was on the internet prior to and at the time of the hearing weren't they? this information about it? >> i don't know. ma'am, personally. >> your hearing was in the meeting minutes from february of this year? >> yes. this information was brought to my attention by miss carpio who spoke here last month. she brought this to my attention after that hearing. and said there might be a conflict of interest here. and we need to look at it.
4:21 pm
now she is not here tonight, and there may be grounds here for a rehearing request and we believe that we can't get any justice from this body we will take it to the ethics commission or further up the line, we believe that these permits should be revoked because of this conflict of interest. thank you. >> sure. >> i want to add something. >> do you have a question for her? >> i do, would you care to comment on the contract with cpmc? >> yes, we issued the permits to the property owners, they did not have a contract to remove the trees, they were private, they may have had a contract with arbor well, but our permits are issued to the property owner, even if the contractor acts as their agent, thank you. >> i would like to ask the
4:22 pm
requestor to representative to come back up please? i have a question. >> yes. >> so based on what the department just stated with respect to their direct, the absence of any direct contractual relationship with arbor well, it is difficult for me to see the conflict. >> well, we believe that the conflict interests maybe from the referrals, that the city gives to some of the private requests here, they make... and we really don't know how far this goes. we believe that it has been mentioned to me that according to her research, arbor well is on the city's prefered vendor list. >> where is that research? >> she is not here tonight,
4:23 pm
madam president. >> right. you are asking for a rehearing based on what appears to be speculation and i have not seen a document or any direct evidence. >> if you dwrant a rehearing tonight we will bring that in. >> based on the rehearing would be a presentation about a conflict and i don't have enough here to support that. >> you may not but another body will. >> i don't have any more questions for you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other comments or questions? >> basis to grant a hearing request, there is no proof that the contracts are with dpw or with golden or with parks and rec. i don't see a conflict. >> do you have a motion? >> i move to deny the hearing request. >> we have a motion from
4:24 pm
commissioner hurtado to deny these rehearing requests. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0. and all three rehearing requests are denied and notices of decision in order shall be released. we continued item 5 to january 29th. we will hear appeal number 1 3-140, david polatnick, verses the department of planning inspection, with planning department approval, on 1532 coal street protesting the issuance on october 22, 2013 of alteration permit of addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio and the natural grade and demo exterior rear wall and this is on for hearing tonight.
4:25 pm
and we can start with the appellant who has seven minutes. >> okay. >> my name is david and thank you for hearing this issue. we have lived at 1526 coal street for over 22 years. and we have a good neighborly relationship with peter and andrea for the last 15 years, an example of this relationship that has been you know, over all of these years as they demos their house and rebuilt it and during that period of time we never made any public, you know, efforts to deny or to delay it, we were supportive of
4:26 pm
that project, and you can see it here as something to you know, protest that project. we are, you know, pro projects like that going forward, we feel that the property owners have certain rights and we were encouraging that one. >> so i come here reluctantly and it is not a forum that i would look to seek and i would rather work it out with the original property owner. but it looks like they put together a good team that helped to build out the project. and we are not really trying to stop the project. the project has moved forward very quickly, and we did not get any 30-day notice about the project, and you know, it was not, and it did not go through the normal process, it was proposed as a garage. but, yet, you know, the uses are kind of in the back of the
4:27 pm
house, and as of an office space or art studio, but not the garage where you can access it from the front with a car. if you can turn this on, and there it is. >> and just depicts the backyard, fence line and you know, a large cypress tree. >> that is your yard? >> yes, it is one of the trees that we will speak about tonight, that tree in particular over the years we have invested 10,000 into the tree, to keep it safe and to take the weight off of the top of the tree, and our neighbors when they were talking about this project and they said that if the tree was in danger they would not do the project at all.
4:28 pm
that is one of the issues that danger of it creating, you know, putting the tree at risk. we live at the bottom of the tank hill and there was an article about the twin peaks that had problems and i am not sure of the details of that, but the water and redirection of the water is an important issue and because we had not given notice we did not have any toim to look at the engineering reports or the soil reports or any studies from the water proofing. our neighbors to the south was not noticed at all, they gave us a letter that wanted me to present and they have concerns about the tree as well as, the
4:29 pm
water, changing. the proposed project is 640 square feet which is a large project, that is going without notice, it is the size of the oval office in washington, d.c.. i will have my architect come in and i brought in our person as well. >> good evening, my name is jace, and i am the president of architecture and i have been practicing for 25 years and i have three main points, one, there are questions, with the height and depth of the proposed addition, that appear not to conform with planning code section 134 and 136, i have outlined these in our
4:30 pm
brief and although in the response brief the project sponsors have submitted revised drawings, the primary questions concerning proposed height above the allowable feet, or aabove the allowable three feet, and proposed depth, greater than 12 feet into the rear of the yard, remain unanswered. and two, given the placement of the new addition in the rear yard, the approval basis of this project, is planning code section 136, c26, and this is the language of that here and it refers to the garage, and it is not specific about that, it does not say a room, or a studio or a living room it clearly says a garage, and to me rntion a garage is purely an


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on