makes a decision and the director issues an order to remove and that decision and the order are both appealable to the board of appeals and i go to the board of appeals and i see carla there every couple of weeks and people often appeal three permits, anytime you need a permit to replace a tree, remove a tree, anytime you need a permit, they're appealable, it turns out that trees like fences are some of the most contentious issue that is come to the board of appeals, they're there every three or four weeks, we see a big tree case. i don't want palm trees on my treat. i want a six-foot box. everybody is very strongly felt about trees, i think. it happens constantly. >> it really brings out people's passions, which, as an -- as a forester, i'm always gratified to see. >> you're passionate. >> but this are also a -- oftentimes conflicts between trees and properties and developing a property, putting in a garage, you happen to have a tree in front of your house, you want to build a garage, you have to get a permit to take it out, we may not grant it automaticly, it can be a process that is challenging. >> we wo

>> 3 evening, and welcome to the july 13, 2011 meeting of the board of appeals. the presiding officer is michael garcia, and joining him are the commissioners, the board's president will be absent today. to my left is the deputy attorney. she will provide any legal advice this evening. i am the executive director. we are joined by representatives from some city departments who will be speaking tonight. the zoning administrator is representing the planning commission hearing good sitting behind them -- the planning commission. at this time, if you would go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all phones and pagers please carry on conversations involve where curator they have seven minutes to present cases and 3-4 rebuttals. -- 3 minutes for rebuttals. to assist the board in accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on a particular item or asked but not required to submit a speaker cards when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and hands are available on the left side

these arguments were raised at the board of appeals hearing. that is a specific contention which the board ruled on and found financial service was not a formal retail use as defined in the planning code. i understand that argument and the code is not as clear as it could be which is why in my conversations with the public, it has been very clear in saying that this needs to be fixed by a legislative change that makes clear what the intent is. we never applied to all 34 of those uses, so that would be appropriate move going forward, either for the board of supervisors or the planning commission to introduce legislation and we could work with the board of supervisors or commission to develop appropriate legislation that would address your concerns and potentially look at interim policies that might help as well. one other note is that a formal retail is defined twice in the planning code. -- formula retail is only a -- is defined twice in the planning code. prop. we have 2007, we have proposition g. it does not apply elsewhere in the city, only a

the board of appeals upheld their decision with they 3-2 vote. so that project has been essentially terminated, although they can come back with an alternate design in the future. the board of appeals will not meet next week, but there will meet in two weeks to take an item that was recently before you, 524 harold street, about an office location. an appeal was filed. it is scheduled for hearing on the 10th, but they did not show at the hearing we had in gen. the file the appeal, but they did not submit their brief on time for the hearing. so we do not quite know what their arguments will be at that hearing or if they will even show for that hearing, but we will keep you apprised of any events there. >> there was no historic preservation commission this week. president olague for those who came later, we did continue the petco item and the leland avenue item. so it became for either of those, there will not be heard today. >> this is item 9, 2011.0661i at 135 main street. a report on samuel merritt universities every be it in -- abbreviated instit

young is a gentle man that got us in touch with the board of appeals. youhe is from the board, but i o not know his title. >> i have two comments. one talked about this toward vacating. if we grant you jurisdiction, the best we can do is reduce isn't. that is an interesting choice of a teacher at tonight. -- t-shirt tonight. >> i forgot. >> thank you. we will hear from the department now. >> i am available for any questions if you have got anything you would like to ask me. >> so the department have an opinion about whether this board should grant jurisdiction and? >> i would say there is no objection, because it is going to come before you again. good a contract would do a lot of business with the city. i find it strange there were 15 days. >> that is not too did the original work? >> the violation was given in 2010, and in august, richard issued a first notice of violation, and there was no action, so we sent its to code enforcement, and he is a building inspector. typically, we would refer to the back of the notice of violation. it is pretty clear it

the permit holder filed an appeal at the board of appeals. since that time, the business has folded. there has been a new permit issued to operators at the same location. the board of appeals formally receive their withdrawal from the appellant. that thankfully is now filed. in addition, the citation appeal, the first one we have ever filed -- we did finally get an outcome on the circolo appeal. the citation was issued on february 27 by mr. bernelli for a violation of their security plan. that was appealed and heard by an and the district of law judge under the office of the comptroller on april 29. the matter was taken under advisement and the final disposition was reported to staff on may 27. and they ruled in favor of the commission, upholding the citation in its entirety. we worked closely with the city attorney on this first time around. we are hoping that in the event of an appeal, if this would happen again, we will not need the city attorney. we will have a template to use for any further appeals and citations. lastly, i wanted to upda

the law is that dpw will issue a permit. i think it will be sent to a hearing officer and then appealed to the board of appeals for the ultimate say. but at&t has indicated, since at&t is the one that needs to apply for a particular site, that at&t as a matter of respect would defer to supervisors in terms of selecting are not selecting a site. i believe that at&t does have a particular letter of intent or mou, would everyone to call it. with individual supervisors, it would memorialize that in writing. supervisor mirkarimi: what piques my interest is if we reflect on the normal course of action that with an exemption does not require eir, when it occurs for one location, typically it is a ceqa response for all locations. i highly doubt that through any ceqa process there would be this sort of selective evaluation. i think that in effect is what at&t was trying to avoid in the first place. if there in fact is that backstop as a supervisor to say no, i think that is an important voice for us to be able to memorialize, and that is a voice i am willing to support. it's the best of both worlds is we are allowed to advance in areas

>> good evening, and welcome to the july 27 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding president is president goh, vice-president garcia, commissioner fung, and commissioner peterson. at the controls is the board's legal assistant. i am cynthia bornstein, the executive director. we are joined this evening by representatives from some of the city departments that will be appearing. we have tim fry, representing the historic commission, and joseph dufty is here representing the department of building inspection. we anticipate that the zoning administrator, scott sanchez, will be here shortly. at this time, if we could go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all funds and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows -- appellants, permit holders, and department holders -- and apartment representatives have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these p

the board appeals will ask me when the work was done. i can nail it by the fasteners.hat does this tell you about the date. the square cut nails before they were wire nails were used. and that let's you know this is a piece installed in victorian times. >> often the screws, also. >> uh-huh. >> an older type screw. many of the screws now are phillips and look like sheet rock. >> the mention dating plumbing fixtures the same is for door and window hardware. oftentimes it will have a manufacture and a patent date. >> right. >> here's a cool hing. that was a door hing. heavy, probably weighs 5 times what a normal hing ways. >> a hing to made to swing both ways it's double acting and a spring hing you adjust it. >> this one might be rusted. saturday you might be able to get it to work. >> then, we have some facets and hardware. what can people do to upgrade stuff like that? >> well, it's all disassembleable. everything canning replaced. as with the door hardware you can take this out and have it plated in anything you like. if you don't like chrome or you want this to be br

to commissioner lee, it's one thing to have nine times the permit fees and ca go to the board of appeals and have them kickback. everyone who gets a notice of violation turns into a lamp at the board of appeals. when it's time to argue that penalties. a little cooperation might make enforcement a little easier to incentivize. my client -- i cannot believe as an architect i can go to a job site repeatedly and see violations as plain as the nose on my face. they don't get much plainer. the department does a great job. there is all sorts of code enforcement and a big staff and director hearings. i have been to several and scene of process work. but at this address, there is a cone of silence that cannot be heard. this property has this protection around it. i cannot explain it. i am an architect and i practice in the city. if my job site look like that house, i would be fired. there is work going on at that house without permits. there has been for seven years. this department has utterly failed that woman. she has spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get your department to do its j

what i would ask the board to do would be to deny the appeal and to give mr. duffy and i the opportunity to sit down. i can give you my pledge of good faith. i don't think that they have had any problems dealing with me. this will allow us to move forward without concerns over what exactly it is that the board has told us that we cannot do. >> he is constrained about figuring out what has been done rather than trying to figure it out. that is my concern. thank you. >> is any rebuttal from you? >> i think we're done. >> this was simply require a continuance. >> we to hold to other tenants in the building because there is work that could be done. unless we can go over it, i would be voting blindly. this seems like mr. duffy is uphold in the arrangement. >> i would personally be more comfortable with that. >> i am comfortable with the concept. >> the council for the permit holders suggested that we deny the permit. >> i would say to uphold and go forward. >> , the comment that was made is that he felt very comfortable that is dealing with the permit, things that

they did not abide by the board of appeals a device or admonition to stop the work. i would also like to say in conclusion, in case i forget, on page 7 of 8, he said that notwithstanding the condition of the building, there were six units of questionable have the ability at less than market rent to friends or acquaintances while in bankruptcy. this is true. the deadline these apartments. he rented by a permit to the wishes of questionable have the ability. i have no question or appliances and the floors are so damaged, thinking i could do it myself, i was told that they were beyond the sanding. my walls are appealing, i was promised a refrigerator on november 6 of 2010. i still don't have a refrigerator. that is all i have. [chime] commissioner garcia: the brief at one point referenced there is a discussion with an attorney for you? >> that was my attorney. commissioner garcia: there was supposedly an agreement made? it never went through? >> there was never an order made for me to hah in membership. he also did not give how many weeks it would go on for. >> let me t

the residential areas who voted you into office. and since 2001 there have been 17 conditional use appeals decided by the board of supervisors involving cell sites like the one on 725 taraval. just last year there were two and the appeal that is a subject of t-mobile's lawsuit and the appeal of the clear wire facility. both were unanimous 11-0 votes in favor of the residents and against the wireless carriers. all told, of the 17 appeals during the past 10 year, 14 have been decided in favor of residents. and resulted in federal lawsuits filed against the city. the city prevailed in all three of the cases and in the t-mobile lawsuit before you today. in fact, the lawsuit -- [bell ringing] >> in the ninth circuit court of appeal decision on the issue of the local government authority to deny the permits of a wireless carriers and metro p.c.s. versus -- supervisor kim: please wrap up your comments. >> which was handed down in 2005. supervisor kim: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am chris houston and i appreciate you giving time to bring this issue up before you. i have something to put on the overhead. is that available? an

evening, and welcome to the june 29, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. ing vice-president michael garcia is commissioner frank fung, commissioner hwang. at the controls, we have the board's legal assistant. i am the executive director. we are so joined this evening by representatives of some of the city departments that will be participating in the hearings this evening. we have the senior planner and assistant to the zoning administrator representing the planning department and the planning administrator, and joseph dufty is here representing the department of building inspections. it at this time, if you could please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers so they did not disrupt the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of position are as follows, appellants, permit holders, and representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle -- for rebuttals. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes each to

>> this meeting of the board of appeals. we will move on to item seven, appeal number 11-078, jeanette harris, vs. department of building inspection, planning department approval, 331 spruce street, protesting the issuance on may 27, 2011 to rae cheng a permit to alter a building, new mezzanine at 4th floor, new habitable space at 1st floor, seismic upgrade, fire sprinkler mezzanine, new property line windows, new french doors at rear and metal guardrail, remodel kitchens and bathroom, provide four new bathrooms. ms. harris, you have seven minutes. i>> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeanette harris. i am the immediate neighbor of 331 spruce street. i'm here for appeal number 11- 078. my viewing of the plans and filing of the appeal for application 02011/03/10/1833 wee within the timeframe. i went to mr. duffy's office, but he was not there in the office, and i left the following note. i met with mr. duffy on his office on tuesday, july 11. he was very helpful. we went up to the fourth floor to look at the approved pl

fact that he came before us in his papers and is here to night stating that when he went to the board of appeals office in order to file for a jurisdiction request in error instead of writing in may 11 as the date he was supposed to appeal, he wrote today's date because he had another case that was being heard tonight, so the board has to decide whether or not to set aside earlier decision to not grant times fiction. if we agreed to set aside not -- to not grant jurisdiction. if we agreed to set it aside, that would mean he would not have an interest fictional request. -- jurisdictional request. it is very unusual. i do not even know how long i have been on this board. i do not remember ever having a case like this. he has appeared before us on many occasions. my memory is that he is a diligent. he properly represents his client, and i am willing to give him one free bite of the apple and if he made a mistake in inadvertent error, it should not affect his ongoing business with other people in the city, and i would personally lead him apply for jurisdiction. >> we have been pretty consistent wher

the building inspector department, i asked to speak to mr. duffy, and their guy there said that if i wanted to appeal i needed to go to the board of appeals, so here i am. vice president garcia: i understand. i must have asked the question poorly. did you submit an invoice to show what the window cost to put in? >> they did not ask for it. vice president garcia: what did it cost you to replace it? >> it cost $5,000. their estimated cost was correct. but according to planning, i only needed to replace nine windows out of 11, because i replaced with a vinyl windows and they don't want vinyl windows. which i don't know the difference between vinyl windows and fiberglass, it looks the same. vice president garcia: that is another issue. you were saying that the windows that were replaced will have to be taken out and replaced with other windows because the final is not approved by planning? -- because of on the windows are not approved by planning? >> yes, a neighbor complained and said the windows were supposed to be wood. 80% of my neighbors who have replaced windows had vinyl. vice president garcia: that is a separate issue. my understanding is

eventually, the permit was revoked by the board of appeals, and they got a new permits that made it illegal, and that permit expired before we purchased the property. we purchased it a few months later, not knowing this, so we were going through the process of assessment, and applying for our permanent. we thought everything was going to be fine, and eventually, i reach the planning department, who had already seen our assessment, the initial plan we had, and they did not say anything then, so it was surprising to us when our permit was denied, and i guess-reaso rn the initial permit was revoked was because both parties agreed to make cakeit a legal two unit. i mean the tenants and landlords. basically we are the only ones that are going to be living there are as of tomorrow, and it is not our rental unit any more, so i guess it is a different situation, so we would like that permit that has expired retak-- our recourse is to revo, and we can move forward with the additional permit. is that clear? >> it is for a clear. -- it is very clear. when you purchase a house, you purchase it with the

the the initiative code there by dissolving the drug abuser advisory board and the citywide alcoholism advisory board. item number8, route resolution appealing the children's collaborative task force. item number9, resolution appealing resolutions to dissolve the arts task force. >> good evening. these pertain to the dissolving of obsoletes aborted bodies graded by the board of supervisors. very quickly, for the public watching, this is it or committee task force or that the board i did make some commitment to our creeks by ordinance or resolution that analyzes a subject matter and then advises the board on policy related to that matter. the board rules require the board to include language in each piece of legislation that requires a suborn the body to meet at least every four months. the rule contains a mechanism for monitoring the support of bodies in that it requires the office of the clerk and the board to contact each body annually and determine if that body is actually meeting every four months. this review we will provide to you annually. if the suborn the body is not identified as meeting the standard, the clerk of request of the ci