Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 27, 2015 3:00pm-3:31pm PST

3:00 pm
appeals board agenda? seeing none, i have item h adjournment is there a motion to adjourn >> so moved. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor. >> i. >> we're now adjourned it's 928 we'll recessed and come back as the building inspection at.
3:01 pm
>> good evening and welcome to the february 25, 2015, meeting of san francisco board of appeals presiding officer this evening will be commissioner president lazarus joined by commissioner honda and commissioner fung and commissioner wilson there is one seat on the board that's vacate and product to the san francisco charter the board may over rile the vote 4 votes are not required we'll be joined by the deputy city attorney for the board and he'll be providing the board with legal voices at the table a scott sanchez the zoning administrator for the city and he's representing his office as well as the planning commission and pea planning department we're going to be
3:02 pm
joined shortly loophole by joe duffy representing the denial and nick the senator plan checker with the street use and mapping i don't see him here but chris with the urban forest internal revenue with the public works mr. pacheco at this time go over the go over the procedures. >> please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk.
3:03 pm
speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for you attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i
3:04 pm
do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> thank you so the first item is public comment for people who wish to speak on an item in the board's jurisdiction but not on the calendar together any general public comment seeing none the next is commissioners questions or comments commissioners? okay. no commissioner comments the third item is the boards adaptation of the february 18, 2015, minutes there additions, deletions, or changes delegations if not a motion to approve the minutes
3:05 pm
>> so moved sorrow any public comment on the minutes seeing none, mr. pacheco please call the roll. >> there's a motion from the vice president to do you want the february 18th minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner wilson thank you the vote is 4 to zero those minutes are adapted. >> thank you item 4 a hearing request phenomenon garfield street a reserve from lynn the appellant requesting the hearing for mar versus dbi on february 2, '78 did board voted with one vacant vacancies to uphold the permit and the project is two walls and one door to be removed and the doors to be restored to the original
3:06 pm
position. >> ms. mar. >> ms. mar is not in the room commissioner president lazarus would you like to call the next item. >> so we'll just hold off and move on to item 5 another subject property on caesar chavez street the board received a letter lawyers miller versus dbi and january 29th the board voted with commissioner wilson and other commissioners to deny the permit it is enrolling issued 3 votes being required to overturn or modify the departmental actions the subject permit was uphold by the operation of law and the project is disconnect and remove the
3:07 pm
sink and over-the-counter put it below the flat mr. crow 3 minutes. >> good evening members of the board and staff i'm dave i represent the appellant pam miller the request was an extraordinarily cases to prevent a maneuvered justice at february 11th meeting you denied a building permit to remove an illegal unit on kansas city street you based your decision that permit was issued without benefit of block notice due to an error we recognized that was important to avail the appellant to request a review and also recognize that was important to
3:08 pm
follow a legally consistent peruser to determine the validity of the permit many millers case a substantially the same case as the kansas street case many miller applied for the notice the permit was issued despite the error and if we were standing before you right now with those facts i assume tell you u you'll grant the appeal and deny the appeal consistent with the kansas appeal unfortunately ms. millers case is the miss steps when i denied the kansas street permit she postponed and the planning commission voted 5 to one to take review and disapprove the permit yet on january 28th you denied the permit based on the
3:09 pm
fact it was illegally issued this is illegal inconsistent with the kansas street project all of that coffin evaluated if the permit were proper viewed before it was issued all of that could have been evaluated the error the department milled this is also the result of the planning department error in allowing the permit to are issued wyoming's without the discretionary review this remained effective despite the planning commission sdraul by upholding the permit despite the decision you've created a legally maneuvered injustice do the right thing and grant a
3:10 pm
rehearing in this case and deny the permit thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> hello, i'm the truest for the disease property owner. >> i'm sorry can you speak directly into the mike i am the truest for the deceased property owner by the took out a permit the people that we got the permit from any guess missed the fact there was a block book notice and even if there was a block book notice nothing would have been different there's been
3:11 pm
time all the facts of that case have been hashed over and over we're trying to remove the kitchen if american people illegal dwelling unit and sell the property in that manner that's all i have to say. >> so i have a question so you're trying to remove the kitchen from the illegal dwelling. >> right. >> is that dwebl illegal. >> on a in most cases in san francisco no one in neighborhood right mind remove an old cottage continue it represent it even though it was illegal or come to the city and try to make it legal you can remove the kitchen you could make it an office or sleep in that but you can't have
3:12 pm
someone pay rent on it. >> okay. thank you. >> are you finished? >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board live scott sanchez planning department our position remains the same the permit was issued the permit should be denied and do the proper process consistent with the commissions decision when we had a discretionary review in light of the decision at the last hearing the possible outcomes i've prepared a revocation inspection should the board deny the request we'll
3:13 pm
seek the building inspection get a permit this would add more process moving forward because our request to revoke it will be appealable and there's an appeal process without revocation moving forward certainly in the board denies this permit gichlg the ability to correct the permit that is the most straightforward decision we'll request that i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> mr. duffy anything no any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. >> my position remains the same the rules for rehearing are clear up new information needs
3:14 pm
to be brought forward i believe we ruled on similar case this is unjust and my feeling to deny the permit. >> and what grant the rehearing and grant the rehearing. >> we don't have the ability to rehear it. >> commissioner. >> madam president? >> i'm going to stay with my same position as previously that therefore i don't feel the cases were similar and i don't think the level of progress that was rb89d in the decision is the same at all i'm
3:15 pm
not prepared to rehear this case. >> commissioner. >> may i mr. sanchez i want to make sure i understood what you said if we do not regrant a rehearing you're going to request that the permit be suspended; is that correct. >> we have a suspension in place the suspension can't be indefinitely it should is have fun outlet so tomorrow request that dbi revoke under the processes in the planning code they revoke it it wasn't properly issued as stayed our request to beginning is appealable to this board i believe that the processes that
3:16 pm
are outlined in the building code have their prurtdz and be available to potentially to the board of appeals but their yeah. there's again more hearings and process that be available. >> but if we regrant the rehearing we're going to process also. >> if you regrant and take action that decision is final if you deny the permit that's the final action on the permit it would be that revocation certainly regretfully no speedy process to make sure the decision is effected. >> thank you. >> make a motion.
3:17 pm
>> is there a motion? >> motion is not going to float their position is the same at commission make a motion? >> move to deny the rehearing request. >> on the basis that no new information has before appropriated thank you mr. pacheco. >> on that motion from commissioner fong to deny this rehearing request commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda no arrest commissioner wilson thank you. the vote is 3 to one this rehearing is denied and the notice of decision shall be released. >> we're going to return to item 4 i know the requester is in the room to hear 926 garfield street this has been called ms. mar come up you have 3 minutes.
3:18 pm
>> hello the reason i asked for the rehearing because lilly was not here last time and we had questions i presented evidence i wanted to relieve the room she's trying to discriminate against me she's trying to get a shortage unit so if the permanent results and applied as a room living in f it she is obligated to stay in the location i have no problem with her demolishing the room as long as she follows what she's supposed to do legally and 60
3:19 pm
days to vacate she's obligated to give me a relocation she should she's applying for a permit to demolish a storage unit that's 23459 not what it is it's a room she's charged a dopey presented everyday to that effect but you guys pretty much made your decision not to look at the second violation permit you ran through it and not posted it so that's why i'm asking for a rehearing and both parties are required to be here she wasn't here to preceded that's all i have to say. >> thank you. >> you went ahead and made our decision anyway, that's not fair. >> my name is lillyes have an i
3:20 pm
don't what ms. that is she's trying to accomplish she say, i served her with a 3 day notice to pay rent or move she's noted paid rent for 2 months and i'm filing legal paper to enforce the eviction notice based on not payment of rent we're not talking about anything i'm just trying to i have a violation it took out the permits to correct the violation she wouldn't allow me to do so i'm asking the board to run state the permit to allow me to go ahead and make the corrections and then work with
3:21 pm
the planning department to legalize other you know other problems that might be there thank you i have copies of the eviction paper if you want to see or we served her with the notice thank you. >> all right. okay. all right. thank you >> okay. any comment from inspector duffey you look like you're ready to get up. >> good evening commissioner joe duffy dbi just one thing on the brief i've read from the appellant she wasn't aware of the notice of violation and the sick amended notice was caused because of the first calling the notice of violations are
3:22 pm
available at dbi for mop to see you can you can look it up on line and there's a notice if you come down to the department of. >> sorry. >> i wanted to respond to that item i read in the brief we do make them available to anyone that wants them. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners. >> different. >> the excuse me. the rehearing requester has not provided any you knew information i'm not prepared to have a rehearing. >> any other comment questions. >> move to deny it on the basis no new information has been
3:23 pm
provided. >> mr. pacheco call the roll please. >> there's a motion on the floor tb commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you vote is 4 to zero this is denied and a notice of decision a shall be released. >> moving on to hayes valley the proposed on hate street the issuance to laguna, llc of a tree 2 privately maintained street trees we'll start with the agent of the appellant you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> you thank you very much for
3:24 pm
hearing this tonight my name is jay rosenberg the chair of the hayes valley association greening committee and i represent them as the appellant on behalf of the greening committee on the hayes valley association had it appeal is protesting the removal of two tries on hayes there's numerous reasons to not permit the removal the numerous public value their that environmental benefits and economic gins their aesthetic beauty on the block of hayes street the public works and the city and county of san francisco recognize the importance value and the enforcement of street trees the planning department is promoting uttering and the known public
3:25 pm
value on hayes should not be dismissed they're more in a nundz they provide healthy environment for habitat and removing pollutant and reduce energy accumulation they should not be overlooked san francisco prides itself on a beautiful city and time to uphold those privately held issues they provide the hayes valley neighborhood association has invested and tributed to the overall character and the shaving aesthetic tree street helps our local businesses to remove the two trees that's the commercial center of hayes valley will cause damage to the
3:26 pm
businesses and the property values it's worthwhile noticing the planning department references to promote the benefits of tree lined streets and the commission shouldn't chop down those their ficus streets and the general species of failure indeed the species of concern 2k3wr5r7bd new focus on the details for the criteria for all those reasons this should not think cautioning in the second degree many of the recent failures in the city share a consistent characteristic the trees are suffer from long time neglect not the effect of the trees those trees could be
3:27 pm
preserved with the right trimming and the two trees are not sick or disadvantaged and not dying their tlaentdz by plans of construction on june to remove the trees the reasons was the construction of a new building and the trees we are deemed healthy and stable and i had a few pictures i submitted to you and showed the difference between a pruned and unpursuant trees those trees were next to the trees on hayes were recently pruned in a manner to show 33 how they could, preserved on pages three and four as seen in the trees a recent pruning in a manner suggested should allow
3:28 pm
the trees to survive long after the construction mrs. notice the difference in the trees they enter face with the building on page 5 initial requester was rejected the requester remove two trees a condition of removal included with a 36 inch box tree it's our position the orderly trees the recommendations are insufficient we have already presented many benefits of the trees the corridor and the line shops is a thriving business district the benefits to wildlife habitat and pollutants from the air and reduced incur xhoumgsz the trees
3:29 pm
might office those but in the meantime it will be observed bits the merchant and visitor the replacement find new trees please consider the carbon monoxide removed from the atmosphere and stored in those trees according to the research the project urban trees are maintained and larger trees store this year carbon and when we plant trees and replant a small trees we've shift did carbon in terms of storage a larger older try will concert carbon to one hundred and one hundred 50 pound of carbon monoxide per year and the new 36 box tree only a fraction over the next 15 years over the next 15 years the
3:30 pm
difference of 75 to one hundred and a plus is measurable as well as quantifyable the scraper hosts the urban trees those trees serves metric tons of carbon and over 22 metric tons there's a value for the carbon as established 20 metric tons $14.3 million of storage and $1460 million every year the carbon is what we allows or losses the amount of carbon is not a small issue but the largest organizations on the globe are leading eff

24 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on