good evening and welcome to the wednesday, may 7, 2014, meeting of san francisco board of

appeals we have daurl honda and our vice president will be absent this evening to my left is a deputy city attorney and at the controls is the boards legal process clerk. i'm king cynthia goldstein we're joined by representatives scott sanchez is representing the particular time planning department and planning commission and the building inspector representing building inspectors the board where these requests you turn off on prvk.

appellants and permit holder each have 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal people must be of must include there's comments within the period and please speak into the end of the microphone to uh-huh. >> the board buried asked but not required to present a speaker card the board welcomes our cards and suggestion there are customer satisfaction forms the boards scheduled if you need to speak to the board or call to find out the scheduled. this meeting is broadcast live observe sfgovtv cable channel 78

and rebroadcasting on xaenl 26 dvds are available for purchase we're going to a swear in or fisherman all those who wish to testify if you wish the board to give our testimony please raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in any member of the public may speak without affirming in the sunshine ordinance 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. okay. thank you. commissioner president lazarus we have two ordinances regarding a letter of legalization at the 31 thirty street has been withdrawn and items and then 10

and 11 appeal numbers 14050 filed by at&t protesting the denial of the excavation process on hampton street. item one is general public comment if fful if dollars anyone who wishes to speak on items no one we'll move to commissioners, comments or questions >> commissioners then item 3 is the boards possible adaptation of the minutes of the april 16th minutes 2014. >> a motion to approve as submitted and so moved. >> we have a motion that i commissioner fung. commissioner hwang >> commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda

that carries 4 to zero. the next item is item number 4 this is the possible action to a set aside and avoid an appeal denying a permit sought by sound castle for a wisely facility the board you may recall it made this decision in april 2011 and crown castle filed a aluminating lawsuit champing it and in the lawsuit crown castle challenged the platelets right to file the appeal and last month the court agreed the court shouldn't have allowed the late filing appeal because of the invent act this

is because there the public works project there was no notice of those types of permits so on april 14th the court set it aside. this is regarding crown castle and vs. the city and county of san francisco et al superior court case and commissioners we do need to take public comment but i wanted to give the board an opportunity to make suggestions or anything else that was made and i guess not >> is there public comment on this item? okay. seeing none commissioners we need a motion >> so moved. >> okay. so there's a motion if

commissioner president lazarus to adapt the resolution commissioner fung. commissioner fong are commissioner honda. okay. thank you very much that motion carries 4 to zero commissioners item 5 a and b that i'll call together this is a possible rehearing depending on the boards decision appeal 11 dash one 2 the rehearing request is in both cases is on monday night sodium street vs. the buckles which the board decided at this .4 to zero to one with one have a doubt to uphold the planning code section.

the project is an existing large gate to be replaced and removed to comply with 90s notices of violation. the appeal that same denial of the permit on january 26, 2011, and having to do with building permit. and i believe the zoning administer is prepared to present first to set the stage for what is at issue here total >> just want to go over sorry members of the board the subject permit seeks to remove an off-street parking partially and we determined this parking space was satisfying a requirement for the adjacent property at the

6760 on montana sdoum street we denied the permit and the board upheld our permit application. the only way to allow the removal was to seek a variance we we had a hearing to remove the grant. i granted the subject variance request that was no appeals of that decision given the new facts the underlying building permit it for approval they have the surveillance to allow for the off-street parking parking space if the board choose they will grant the rehearing for the item and overturn the denial based on the off-street parking can be removed and add a request that the curb that was

previously in front of this part of the driveway so the curb will be restored and i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> mr. sanchez wouldn't it be easier to file for a permit. >> it's certainly possible they wouldn't have had to wait because the deadline facts have been changed but since this matter could come back to the board and it's part of the settlement process so also this decision would not inform appealable further so in terms of the process it's more straightforward for everyone to have this permit be the final action. >> thank you. >> mr. mathison.

>> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners ryan with the permit applicant the zoning administer has set out of important facts but i want to take a enemy to thank you thank the city staff for resolving this matter it's a long running difficult situation i'm happy to come back and report that the parties have been able to settle the matter action committee for women in prisonly and reached the ross resolution. this is a copy of the variance removing any city denomination that created a dangerous situation that can be addressed. the neighbor has executed a quit

claim deed there's nothing holding back the permit and we begin a request to from the standpoint a rehearing and overturn the denial and i'll ask my colleague to talk about the situation >> i concur with everything with the permit and this variance will be able to address once the parking is removed they'll be parking back in the street so we'll present no new information we've presented it all. >> okay. is there any any public comment on that item? okay sorry, sir, did you have many i comment i show shove asked so commissioners we need a

vote on the rehearing and depending on the outcome of vote whether or not to have a rehearing i mean, i'll grant the hearing request. >> by the new information of the settlement agreement and correct. >> okay. thank you we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant the request. commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda. okay. great so with that request granted i don't know if there's additional comments the parties need to make on the rehearing of this matter anything futuristic from the zoning administer >> the only thing to note our understanding is this permit entitled the surveillance and resolve a life safety prior

condition that is the result of parking in house and restoring the curb cut. >> public comment is closed.. any public comment on that item? >> it's being overruled the denial do we need to put the curb cuts in this. >> so you want to condition mr. sanchez you want the board to issue the offer turning of the addressing of the curb. >> that's correct. >> i'll move to grant the appeal and overrule the denial

of the building permit on the basis that a surveillance has been successfully applied for and received. and condition the permit upon the removal of the curb cut. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant the appeal and overturn the denial on the variance on the condition that the removal thought you curb be cut. >> commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> okay. thank you the vote is 4 to zero and that permit denial is over turned.

moving on to item 6 another rehearing request this is at the property on katrero after the board received a letter from the appellant requesting a rehearing o'dell vs. the buckle decided on april 14th the board voted with commissioner president lazarus recused to deny the appeal on the basis the project is code compliant and gone through extensive review and with the act findings that are read into the record with a 76 use building with ground floor area. commissioner honda my hello commissioners madam director, i have to recuse for financial interest conflict >> thank you.

sir and i have 3 minutes >> good evening. i'd like to start with reading from the sequa desk book about mitigation measures when adapting the mitigation measures the agency must adapt the program or made by the project approval that the program revisions are implemented reporting a program must insure the product implementation and in marcus the mitigation measures it must be made during the prelims and provide the effecting of the effectness of their actions and learning mitigation for future projects

and identify the need for enforcement action before eir verbal disadvantage occurs. at the last hearing commissioner fung upper not certain that the mitigation measures and sequa i thought they had monomore to do with the project approval their solely to do with sequa and to remind you on the morning which january 17th the developers of the project back jack hammering without a permittee project site since the last hearing i've received corresponds from the department of public health the senior environmental health inspector which stated everything i've said dpw and d d i received complaints the site was operating without a permit

and shut down that i dbi it was observed it's a health concern. visual dust beyond the property over the sidewalk is a violation of the health cod and dbi issued the notice of violation they created dust without a dbi parking meter permit and breaking up property with a jack hammer and a lady passed by the site with several small children i submitted pictures and the construction dust control plans are to be enforced by the building of inspectors and they doesn't issue any enforcement therefrom the mitigation program is not enforceable for this project all you have to do is

some of the that the dpuft dust control plan is implemented that's a start. if i have one more second i have since received the shadow studies that's over the height deliberating it's directly contrary to what we provided in the his project to the board of supervisors i can show you those conversation because you should see them thank you >> thanks can we hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners. before us is whether or not the appellant is granted a rehearing request he's not shown any new circumstances he's merely

repeated what is in his brief and what is in his testimony so his hearing request should be denied and discuses ms. hill shoernz words that she says that dbi issued complaints of notice and after those statements were made i received a declaration from several preliminary junction and dbi resolved it the dbi inspectors was stent e sent to the site the day that the jack hammering was done and he didn't see any dust so again his arguments is not correct and the

appellant failed to present any new facts and circumstances so his request should be denied >> thank you, mr. sanchez. thank you >> thank you scott sanchez i'm not aware of the any facts and circumstances i think the soil samples have been 0 addressed and we're not aware of any violations on the subject permit if there are violations then it will be referred to the department i'm available for any questions. >> anything? sir? >> commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm

tom with the department of building inspectors that's true dbi didn't respond to a complaint on looks like february 6th and our inspector observed some soil borges take place which is perfectly normal for one of the projects. there was only a site permit issued so the contract project sponsor is not lout to do construction you, however, allowed to take the soil samples to device a proper foundation for the building a that's what we found and we closed the case subsequent to that >> any public comment on that

item? seeing none, then commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners the i have to look over to the tape to see if i got convulsed over mitigations southerner i was at planning i lost count of the how many eirs i looked at but because of the oral presentation it was basically two issues one to the mitigations which was presented in the permit rehearing. not rehearing the permit hearing. the other issue that was not discussed orally in the brief related to whether it was inappropriate to move the case forward and therefore might have

short krishthd the public testimony on this. i believe that the staff at our department and the history of what occurs with the scheduling is quite clear that people are told not to try to guess what time. they need to be here in the event of things being withdrawn or things being moved it can occur at any time to neither of the issues are grounds in my opinion for a rehearing. move to deny the rehearing request >> okay. on that motion by commissioner fung to deny the

request. vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda is recused it motion carries 3 to zero thank you very much. item 7 has been withdrawn we'll call item 8. christopher and others vs. the department the a department of public works urban forest for the property at the 2150 illinois street on post noticing the project >> thank you. commissioner fung. 2014 to tree removal permits to remove 6 existing trees and plant 5 new trees jurisdiction was granted by this board on

march 2014 and it's on hearing today, we'll start with the appellant. if you give the commissions a momentum to settle in you have 7 minutes >> i'm going to bring up a gentleman he's practiced in the bay area and wrote for the chronicle asked the arresting before his for 5 years heave quality to comment on the two particularly trees that we're asking the permit be revoked on here he is. >> good evening. i examined the subject unlips trees the common name is the red iron bark inu eucalyptus contrary to some things you hear

the program at the university of california which is the urban forestry program holds those species no high regard it is highly valuable for its boost. the subject trees are the could you turn on the overhead or it will turn on? okay. are the only matured trees on that block of the illinois street. they are quite toxic and immediately adjacent to an apartment building. there are some others trees on the other side of the street which are mature monterey pines but they're highly congested with the beetles they'll not be

there long. the two subject trees are raised two feet above grade this has north not lead to the con i am not of the trees as mentioned, in fact, the roots extend far beyond the beds in which they were planted. the cracks in the pavement show they extend to the street and 14 feet beyond the existing that building. this shows a picture of the root extension out towards the curb. the subject trees have non-not been well maintained but they can be well maintained and restored to pruning is in the be

- unqualified people have been hired and there is poor pruning but the pruning can be corrected quite effectively it is true this was a branch broken from the, true tree but restored pruning can create any defects and allow the trees to live many years longer. the university at cal poly i didn't listed the tree as moderate growth rate relatively long lived depending on one hundred to 1 hundred and 50 years it's highly valued for its red flowers and