communications but this was just one they saw and i thought with that i didn't see the benefit of continuing that to allow for additional information when it seemed pretty clear that the applicant was not providing to the department what neigh needed and i think as commissioner fung pointed out, we're not even days or weeks or years into the project. this was a 1998 application. we're more than a decade away. president goh: ok, thank you. commissioner fung: as an aside question. is the site remediated now? >> i do not have that information before me but i could find out and report back. president goh: thank you. commissioners? commissioner fung: in this particular instance, the project itself, it's an empty lot and it was a gas station

and it's been under remediation for as many years as i've been driving past its. the proposed development and the permit application has to be based on the conditional use in this particular instance. what may be before us is whether we find that the department acted incorrectly in not providing either a continuation or whether there was actually activity of some type. i guess to provide her with some level of greater review or the part of this board we should look at the documentation and make that determination whether we grant jurisdiction.

>> mr. fung is the documentation you're referring to documentation as to whether or not this permit is pursuant to the conditional use snorgs commissioner fung: no, it relates to submission dates, site permit packages, whether they were submitted as talked about or whether they were identical or whether there was really no forward progress in this particular instance. >> i'm a bit confused. if you were as a board to decide to grant jurisdiction i would still not feel clear in answer to the question of whether or not the board has jurisdiction because of the conditional use. commissioner fung: i'm not sure that i'm reflecting that. i'm looking at this more in light of it's no different than a zoning administrator's determination. >> but what is being requested

of you is an appeal of a permit and the permit is, from what the zoning administrator has indicated, related to the conditional use authorization. commissioner fung: i think i pushed it too far. vice president garcia: i think we took too much time off. >> are there any other commissioner comments? commissioner fung: if we did that, if there is no other opportunity, they have to start over again. that's my only concern and in light of the fact that it has been an empty lot for such a

long time and a issue of housing is probably in general a desirable issue within our city. president goh: mr. sanchez do you want to speak to the expiration of the c.u. or do you want to address commissioner fung's comment? >> i just wanted to say that we've deemed the conditional use to be expired and we would require any conditional use -- i think really what they would be able to salvage here is the building permit application itself potential -- potentially, which has already been denied so i'm not sure of the procedural process for that. with the building cold they go with the building cold of the day. the difference is they get if 1998 building code versus the current building code for the project.

president goh: so the c.u. is expired. when did it expire? >> technically three years after the issuance, so in 2006. we had extended to it allow additional time. commissioner fung: 1998. president goh: right, till 2006. i'm leaning toward vice president garcia's view on this one. commissioner fung: we have no choice. president goh: did you make a motion? >> shall i call the roll then? commissioner fung: president goh, the project sponsor is raising her hand. president goh: i called the zoning administrator up so why don't you come up for one minute. >> some of the managers are saying that we already expired

on the conditional use but that's not true. they give us the approval and we already file everything. it is in progress. so everything is in progress and i talked to the planning department. i talked to the building -- they say that it doesn't have a building permit. but i find out showing to them and then they find out the record. they're saying that they forgot to reissue a new permit number. that's why it's still under 1998. also, when i checked with the planning first of all they told me that they didn't have the plan. but i showed them, no, it's in progress. you guys have already, black and white, received a plan on the record. then they told me that they would search on the table and i wait until last year. i particularly make a meeting, go to the planning with the planner. he keeps saying that he doesn't have the plan. i asked him to search on your

table. then he did. then he's saying that all the he has said all the plans are the same. i have three plans showing this is in different ways. they have sent us the comments and then they change it. >> your time is up. thank you. >> are there other comments or should we vote? >> i understand that her references are to the building permit and the fact is that the underlying entitlement is a conditional use and this has already expired and should they require this, it does not go back to us. >> i think it would be helpful for the department to spend some time explaining that.

>> please call the roll. >> the motion is from the vice president to deny jurisdiction. the vote is 4-0, jurisdiction is granted and no new appeal is created. -- and the appeal is denied. >> i think we need to take a short break.

>> we are resuming the meeting of the board of appeals. we are ready to have item number5 called. >> this is the appeal of a tree removal permit for one tree and the conditions placed on the permit for another tree. order number 178895. been >> i am the co-owner of the

property. we have owned the property for almost 18 years. i must disclose that i am also the president of my neighborhood association and of worked very closely with the department of public works. one of the things we wanted to do when we bought the property it was that we wanted to remove the two trees. we did not like them, even my neighbors wanted to remove theirs. we went by the books as we do with every organization and agency in san francisco. i must disclose that one of the issues in the neighborhood are people removing trees without permits. we would buy the book, we have file the application to remove these trees, we paid the filing

fee, we had a hearing. our issue with the night, we had a second hearing and one of the trees can be removed and one must pay -- must stay. i am appealing is because we want to put two new trees on the property, on the sidewalk, actually. i understand in the future, the board of supervisors will ask to have property owners take care of the trees and not dpw. if i have to maintain the street trees, then i want trees that i really like or the i want. these trees dross nests every single year, which we have to remove. one of the recommendations that was stated by the department was

that they requested that we hire an urban tree outfit but we do our own landscaping and our own pruning and vegetation work. but my partner would like to speak but what i'm asking is that you overturn the partial and i'll of removing one of those street trees. thank you. >> good afternoon -- good evening, commissioners. i have three counterpoints and would like to make to the responses brief. in regards to the loss -- loss wasps. that having something that is

less attractive to them would be beneficial to ourselves and our neighbors. the industry provides habitat to birds. we have many more trees in our neighborhood. we are very close to a park. i don't believe the removal of these two trees and a replacement would deprive the birds. there is a point made that the mortality rate edged down trees is higher than that for established trees. that might be the case for those who don't pay attention to trees. we don't intend to disregard the trees. we intend to benefit our neighbors and foster the trees. we have made great improvements to our home. we have actually increased our property tax base that is of a benefit to the city. as a result, we would like to

further improvement by improving the front of our house by replacing these two trees. the next point our like to make is that there is a safety concern that i have in as much as across the street when cars parked there, there has been break-ins. most important to note to that side of the street. what i believe is that there's no home that fronts that side of the street. the home on the other side, that is the side of the house. there's no actual front of the house which i believe it would prevent a venue for robbery of cars. we have two cars, both have been broken into. we no longer part on that side of the street. we have support from all of our we have support from all of our neighbors in the removal of