tv [untitled] January 12, 2014 3:30am-4:01am PST
multiple units >> (speaking foreign language.) >> excuse me. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so from my point of view i got all this people who are in agreement with me that's why they signed their name on this sheet of paper. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and i would point out that the argument that the building is not going to block my view is
false. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it is 2 1/2 feet longer than my house. >> again, i'm sorry speaking half chinese and english is hard for me to translate. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> okay. the statement is the existing house is 2 to 2 one half feet longer than ourself ours, however, the diagram is evenly in length that's incorrect. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> the current 2 and a half feet already block our view and
we can only have minimum view now. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and then, you know, if you have proposing adding 16 more that feet we're going to have blockage of 18 and a half feet and that would take off maybe a larger portion of our view. one quarter - half >> (speaking foreign language.) >> well, the house only 20 feet long and they're proposing there will be doubling our length.
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> and the building is erected that will block the view from our yard. now we can look over our yard and see a lot of space and if the building is going to be erected it definitely block the view >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah, and in that case all we can see in our backyard is the wall from the neighbor. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it with that way of life we can't enjoy our barbecue from our backyard and view my also, you know, it may hinder the flow of air.
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> well, we, use the barbecue in the patio then we have to go down further and that will be a waste. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> thank you. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and in addition even now sometimes they past their caesar car over to our property and if they're going to do something we may not have a parking space at all. >> (speaking foreign language.)
>> thank you. >> okay. thank you mr. you, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> according to the neighbor we have to the photograph on the map and you see all the neighbor here so only it block only two of the properties and most of the pop outs are right here. so even we have a neighbor character we don't do the house scale just the normal people most of the people in the block can only have two properties that's how we do it in here.
this the sunlight i say this before there is no way to a block the sunlight either in the front or back. the hue even the front and probable in the front they have only limited sunlight because of the hue. i was there. i know the sun you can't. even from all the house do we block in the view for the and no way. i explain about the neighbor only the character of the neighbor most of the other pop out effects. thank you >> i have a couple of questions, mr. hue. >> i have a question.
>> yes. >> would a pretty large estimation did you have any outreach to the neighborhood and we did that. we ordered the lease and to the neighbors and come to the meetings >> and did anyone show up at the meetings. >> the tv here some of the number that cross the street at the light. >> okay. so - >> not even here in the 7 block. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> anything mr. sanchez? thank you scott sanchez i wanted to mention that that one of the issues raised by the appellant was with regards to privacy and noting on the extension on the side of the extension facing the appellant there will be no
windows and if anything the windows at the rear building are essentially being moved back so there's more privacy at least into their rear yard and also this shows the reduction in height where it was removed as requested by the department. i'm available for any questions >> commissioners. the matter is submitted. what are those documents on the perfumed no on where the microphone is? okay. thank you. comments. commissioners >> commissioners a couple of general comments. one this appears to be a key lot
the appellant lot is quite a bit longer and if they want to expand their home. they can do it. two comments one by the va and one by the commissioners perhaps refers to a sizeable edition but once you look at those are relatively small homes we have homes that are 25 feet by 40 feet roughly per floor. the - this block is quite different than the adjacent lot where the buildings are much larger and extend further into the yard but besides that the four issues that have been raised by the appellant one is that illegal units potentially on the ground floor.
i know that the access to the garden room occurs on the garden and there's no access. as mentioned the privacy there are no windows on that wall that faces them and in terms of direct sunlight i'm in agreement that the orientation does not provide a direct impact of shadows onto the rear of the appellant that building. the fourth item is the issue the potential blockage of a portion of the view and that's new. i would hazard to guess given the way housing is in san francisco this particular block is going to see some pressure to a greater expansion and it could
be a little bit of a domino effect. but based on the comments i've made and the fact it is co- compliant i don't see a reason either to massage the current scope or design or to revoke the permit >> anything else. >> i agree with commissioner hwang. >> do we have a motion. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal. >> is that because it's code immigra compliant. >> yes. >> we have a motion implicit commissioner fung to up hold this on the base it's code immigrant commissioner fung.
commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 5 to zero the permit it upheld on that base >> so item 6 appeal number 13 dash 57 mcclellan vs. the urban forest. this is regarding a property on francisco street to roam one privately i owned tree adjacent to the property >> i'm sorry if i may make a general comment on the last case. it does us no good to receive a set of drawings from the permit holder at the hearing. i was wondering that there was no brief from the permit holder. you know, we don't have
equal consideration. my home on francisco was built in 1863 and part off the coast interest the tree is located where the college was occupied and this house was the only house to survive the 1906 earthquake and fire. when the neighborhood was rebuilt new structures were 3 and 4 victorian flats. in the - a little cottage is my home. in the 60s or early 70s the city plant a christmas tree this is a species that does well and the tree in front of of the house has blocked the sun from my
southern exposure. and has dislocated portions of the sidewalk. and the curb. at the time the tree was plant the building the city took the responsibility of sidewalk trees he since then the city has transferred it but the city restrict what the city owners do with replacement. when i acquired the how is it had a host of problems but it deciphered to be saved. therefrom i constructed a major part of the house and closed the
original basement area and smallest new plumbing and windows and skylight and roared the one hundred and 50-year-old structure. i want to improve the sin light by replacing the existing tree with a smaller tree that's more proprietary to the scale of this property. with the tall structures on the south side it is the only exposure to direct sun that i have. that's a view that was taken from the side of the house a little deck. since i've owned the property i've had the tree trimmed twrisz and it's not improved the direct sunlight. the trimming is stimulated and worsened the sidewalk which is a tripping hazard pr the bureau of
urban forest seems to be focused on the trees health. there are other considerations that are well articulated by city policy. the sb energy conservatism is important. an example that didn't allow new instructors to cast shadows on public park. the whole idea is the policy encourages daylight. the cities upper design projects look to compliant this. when the property to the north of my house was converted the city's urban design policies had the open space that was designed. it's a marvelous interior block space. in the center portion that came out of the plans development the
result is a dense landscaping that contributes to the birds habitat as well as the property owners. i was disappointed that the dw p acknowledged my concerns they don't address my concerns nor have they corrected the damage to the pedestrian active sidewalk. prior to requesting a permit i talked to my neighborhood and were all open to the replacement. there was letters and e-mails submitted during this request and appellant process objecting to my request by people who don't live on the street. one of the letters was actually a multiple from someone around
on stockton named rita who stated that the issue concerned several of her neighborhood who haven't had the opportunity to comment. i'm not aware of any such neighborhood. i he was the approached by one of my neighborhood she unsuccessful tried to rally the neighborhood. i attempted to contact her and have not heard back from her. the ladies objective letter to the bureau she made reference to a haven for humming birds. i've never seen humming birds around the tree there's a habitat in my backyard and one in the center of the block. the arrow points to the tree.
i remain committed to having a tree in front of my house. i want a smaller tree that won't displace the curb. it will contributed to this sidewalk for decades to come. i've suggested this tree because the trespassing tree is 34r57b9d across the street and would be commentary. i'm open to an alternative sprees >> thank you your time is up. you'll have more time on rebutt rebuttal. ms. shorten
>> good evening, commissioners ms. shorten. the appellant and i agree on many things we applaud him on his efforts i want to make a clarification that this tree was not planted by the city it was planted by a permit and has been the motorbikes of the property owner. we do, however, restrict what the property obituaries can do because their credit card part of the public good. it's your maintenance responsibility to take care of the sidewalks. we have restrictions for what people can do and we have guidelines and require permits before they can be removed. we did receive an application to remove the tree if the tree is
healthy and in good condition we'll deny the baigs application if we feel it's possible to mitigate any litigation. but i want to state the department would never seek to keep the damaged sidewalk and it can be safely preserved and our recommendation was to a expand the area around the interest tre to create a larger tree well, for a nice landscape adjacent to the tree. our policy is to preserve may i approach trees when possible because they provide greater benefits to the residents of the city and it takes many more years for the trees to provide the same services. and so for those reasons we have rules about when trees can be
removed from the public right-of-way. i got an e-mail from one person who protested the removal of this tree and asked that we the residents are not in agreement and ask the tree to live >> i want to say the species is a good tree and over time it gets large it is slow growing to it will take time to match the tree so the appellant would prefer not to match but it would take years before we get the benefits from the tree but over time it will easily reach the size of this tree if not exceed
it if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> the beginning could is not disacids. >> it is. a couple of quiz. the picture that was shown in the latest 60s she's a relatively small tree is it the same tree >> it is. newly planted >> what does that say about the life of the tree. >> in terms of lifespan. >> yes. >> i'm also redundant to answer that because there's many factors that effect the trees. they're limited in many cases by the soil volume and sidewalk. that's - soil underneath the sidewalk. we know that urban trees generally don't live as long as
their counter parties. the tree could live many more years based on it's performance it tends to do very good but the limit would be used limited to sidewalk damage but if the tree well, it expanded we don't need to repair the sidewalk the tree can live for many years >> on a procedural basis if there were no neighbors who be obld would the department decision have been different? >> it's hard to say at the directors level whether the decision would have been different. at the staff level we try to
preserve mature trees. we try to consider whether to uphold a staff decision but our departments decision is to keep mature trees. i can't say for concern but the department you tries to preserve mature trees >> is that your primary concern. you should have taken into account the quality of life issues were those taxing. the director the finding don't refer to those specifically but generally, we consider the live issues and we want the sidewalk to be repaired that sort of
thing with you we're looking at the public good such as the public owners quality of life issues >> the repair is fully the responsibility of the property owner. >> that's right and. and what's the cost of life for that repair >> right. >> the base and expansion can reduce the overall repair because less sidewalk is poured back. i think an average cost for sidewalk repair is going to depend on the contractor with you $100 per square foot is common so the amount of damage what dictate what that would
cost. we would be combopg on the property owner for the expanding area it could be kept level with the granite which wouldn't require a lot of damage but it's the property owners responsibility and it would require renewal over the years >> it's a sizeable tree do you make any recommendations for the pruning. >> we would address that and that tend to deal with access over the curb for vertigo traffic and access over the sidewalk. if there are no conflicts that the utility