tv Board of Appeals SFGTV September 30, 2022 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
>> president swichlg good evening and welcome to the september 28, 2022 hybrid meeting of the san francisco board of appeals president swig the presiding officer and joined by vice president lopez. commissioner trasvina and commissioner eppler. welcome. >> and commissioner lemberg is abcents also the deputy city attorney will provide legal
advice. i'm julie rosenberg the board's executive director we'll be joined from the city upon did thes presenting this evening. tina tammy. zoning add administrator representatives planning. matthew green with dbi and chris buck be public works. the guidelines request you turn off all phones and electronics. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the rowels of presentation for cases continued appellates permit hold and ares respondents given 3 minutes to present and people affiliated with them include comments within the 3 minutes. members of public not guilty affiliated have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal during public comment. jurisdiction request 3 minutes each with no rebuttal you will
get a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. 4 votes are required. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rowels or schedules e mail the staff at board of appeals. public access are of importance to the board. sfgov.org is streaming live and the 8 to receive comment for each item on today's agenda will sfgovtv providing closed captioning for the meeting to watch on tv go to channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday on channel 26. a link is at sfgov.org/boa. public comment can be provide in the 3 ways. in person, zoom, go to the website and click on zoom or phone. 669-900-6833 enter access code: 826 8612 7217##.
sfgovtv is streaming it across the bottom of the screen if you are watching. to block your phone number first dial star 67 then the number. listen for public comment and press star 9 equal to raising your hand. you will be brought in the hear when it is your turn you miff to dial star 6 to unmute xuville 3 minutes. you will get a 30 second warning before your time is up. there is a delay with live and what is broadcast on tv and the internet. therefore it is important people call nothing reduce volume on tv's or computers otherwise there is interference. if the participates on zoom need a disability accommendation or assistance request in the chat function to the board's legal assistant or send an e mill to sfgov.org. chat correspond evercannoting used for public comment or
pregnancy. we will take public comment first members that are present in the room. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member may speak without taking an organize. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidenceary weight raise your right hand and say i do. >> do you swear the testimony you are about to give is nothing but the truth? if you are a participate and not speak put zoom on mute. now item one a special item. consideration. adoption a resolution finds beings to allow teleconferenced meeting under california coat subsection e. is there public comment on this item, please, raise your hand? i don't see comment. we need a motion. >> commissioners, would you like
to make a motion? >> sure. so moved to adopt. >> we have a motion from violent lopez to adopt the resolution. on that motion commissioner trasvina? >> okay. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the resolution is adopted. we are on item 2 general public comment an town for anyone who would like to speak on the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. anyone here for general public comment. i don't see general public comment. we will move on to item 3. commissioner comments and questions. and commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. aside from welcome our newest colleague. i did want to on the note about our meetings being virtual.
i hope some point we are getting to the end of the covid emergency and whether there are for covid reasons or not it is useful for you to have virtual meeting says baz to make sure the public can see what we are doing and how and to prepare them for they come buffers. i hope that the city attorney's office or we could take a position that after the covid ruleers over we continue in this way. and if it takes some rule of our own or whether other rule at board of supervisors we encourage that fo to increase public participation. >> thank you. i like to the opportunity to [inaudible] welcome j. r. eppler and welcome to our wednesday night swary. you will finds it interesting and -- and this is we had a
reputation the people's court. so -- we work for the silents of the city of san francisco and support their needs. een when there are 2 sides to every store. enjoy yourself and we look forward to working together as well as with mr. givener he will be here in the short term or mid term. i don't know and replacing russy who actually made an appearance last week moved on to another position several weeks ago. welcome. and we look forward to your support of the >> thank you. commissioner eppler. >> yes, thank you i want to thank my fellow commissioners for the warm welcome special thank you, julie for the conversation today i'm honored
be here and i am privileged to have the thrust of the city government to dot work of this board. thank you very much i look forward to working with you. >> thank you. vice president lopez. >> yea. i want to echo the welcome to our newest commissioner. very much look forward to working along side you for this important work of the city. and you know i find it positive that now we have a consistent quorum of attorneys on the board of appeals and realize not everybody may feel like that about having as many attorneys on the board as i do but as a member of the bar excited and look forward to working with you. welcome. >> is there public comment? raise your hand. >> we will move on to item number 4. adoption of minutes.
before you for discussion possible adoption the minutes. september 14, 22 meeting. >> do i hear a motion to accept those minutes? >> okay. is there public comment. >> sorry. >> is there public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes? >> i don't see any. on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> minutes are adopted now on to item 5. this is jurisdiction request number 22-6 property 730 pine street from victoria cashman and ryan carol take jurisdiction over public works ordissued on july 6 of 22. the appeal period ended july 21 of 22 and the jurisdiction request was filed on september 8 of 22. the determination holder is william gerhardt and the
recommendation approved tree site 2 for removal and replace am. tree site one cannot be replaced because of utility conflict the and the request for removal of tree site one is denied. we will hear from the requestors first. i don't see them on zoom i'm not sure if they are present. they are not present. >> he is the permit holder i'm checking to see if the requestors are here. >> do you want to call them. is that fine. i'm not sure if -- okay. so. we are going to move on to the next item the requestor is not here. >> so item 6 appeal 22-05 zsh
spencer gosch and planning approval property 94 if i have to 947 min musn't street the issuance on june 24 of 22 to an ateration permit real place entry doors, all windows modify the center wind organism wood window with front and all other windows shall be wood. replace all cot board to rustic side to match existing siding. create rear deck permit 201910033468. upon motion the board voted 5-0 to continue this to september 28 the planning department could have more time to review the project. and as preliminary matter commissioner eppler did you review the materials and watch the video from the hearing on august 17th. >> yes. >> thank you. >> so we will hear first from
on august 17th planning requested kn continue knowance of appeal for minnesota street. we made this request because planning needed more time to review the new information related the work on the property. in the material for this appeal case the 2019 permit to restore and replace damaged front stairs, windows and siding. the permit included infilling the open area on the ground floor that is under the addition and construct a new deck and spiral stairs on top of the existing rear edition. since the august 17th hearing planning reviewed the plans and conducted a joint site inspection with dbi staff. confirmed that the existing rear addition where the new deck and stairs are proposed on top and the ground floor infill under, would demo and rebuild without a permit. as i noted in the last hearing 945 and 947 minnesota is a historic resource. a structure in the dog patch landmark district. the dog patch district is 9 block enclave of early housing and industrial buildings. located in the central water front area the district is significant san francisco oldest and most in tact kanz tragz of
vicktoryian era housing for industrial workers and the city's last reupon maining mixed use residential neighborhoods. this means any work to the structure is subject to the provisions of article 10 of the planning code. this includes changes to the exterior and significant changes to the interior. given the demolition of historic fabric and material occurred on the property any changes proposed a new certificate of appropriateness will be required. it is important to note that the demolition and reconstruction of the rear addition triggers preservation review but a new reariard variance as well. the 3 store addition in the required roar yard. the demolition and reconstruction of this addition requires a variance. since the project will be reviewed by the historic preservation commission for the certificate of presentness and
zoning add administrator for variance and possibly the planning dmigz if a dr is filed no action can be taken on permit in the meantime. planning department asking the board to revoke the 2019 permit and combine all the work into one permit. we believe this is the best and logical way to proceed. >> thank you >> president swig has a question. >> sorry. so basically tonight on -- on many, sides we are our hands are tied to move to even think about moving forward with this permit. okay. correct? >> that's correct. >> and now i will leave it there. that's >> thank you. >> okay.
thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening president swig and vice president lopez and commissioner trasvina and commissioner eppler matthew green with building inspection. there are several permits on minnesota street. issued prior to the permit buffer tonight include one remove and replacing the sheet rock to upgrade the plumbing and electric in 2017. another 2 remtsdz a 2 unit building over the counter for interior renovations in 2018 and foundation issued in 2019. all the permits are still open and yet to be completed. permit before thank you evening file in the october of 2019 and issued in june of 22. prior to this permit approved
dbi received a complaint work done outside the scope of the issued permit. investigated and confirmed work was going on beyond the scope of the issued permits and notice of violation was issue in may of 22. work proceeding prior to the 2019 permit application issued. work was done without a permit. we issued a notice of violation contractor stopped all work in the areas under the filed permit. other areas these were barricaded and stop work order was issued. for the areas at the rear covered urged the now perimism work was allowed under the active permits. site visit last week with planning revealed the no work ignored and work did proceed at the rear addition this was not allowed since 2019 permit was suspended and the 22 permit addressing the extra work was
not issued. dbi ordered the stop work ordfor the whole project. we forwarded it and director's meeting scheduled will not be until early next year. the permit buffer tonight does nocapture the scope of the work dbi recommended the board grant the a peeve and revokes the permit or allow the applicant to cancel the permit as offerd and submit a permit application that captures all work. i'm available for questions. >> president swig. >> state the obvious you agree with planning cease and desist at this point. >> we don't move forward tonight. >> correct. and issued a stop work order on the project no work can prosecute seed there. for the benefit of are all the commissioners. here -- we heard from both plan
and dbi this there is significant breaches of the law. faith pretty much everything was abused. other than the accountability of asking us to not proceed, is there any other accountability that the permit holder or landowner be subject to. why we have an actave notice of violation forward today code enforcement for further hearings. that could result in further enforce am action. >> what is the saying, commit the whatever. dot act and pray for forgiveness later? correct. >> in this case the forgiveness may come with some other
condition? >> correct. >> i will say that we did permit condition tractor to proceed the other per mitts the understanding move forward we let them go forward they ignored our conscience. i saw this. >> breached your faith and broke the law. >> correct. >> okay. >> thank you for that. mr. trasvina. >> thank you, mr. president i want to clarify what your recommendation is when it is said not to move forward. that mean this board not moving forward on a vote on any matter or the recommendation is to grant move forward and grant an peaceful to hold everything up. >> grant the appeal. >> are you asking me or president swig. >> i'm asking what your
department recommendation is. we would like to comprehensive permit that entires the scope of the work the applicant offered to cancel the existing and submit the comhencive permit on their own. difference with cancelled and revoked permit i will defer to the attorney here what the difference is. thank you. >> okay. thank you we hear from the permit holder. did you want to address the architect for the permit holder you have 3 minutes. >> yes. i'm the architect on the project. this project started in 2018 with me. the owner actually pulled the permit to remove sheet rock and do things prior to me getting on board. the 2018 was interior remodel. 2019 permit this is suspended
now is a comprehensive permit to capture everything. this permit went to the historic landmark's board. went to variance sharing and the planning commission. and it was upheld. the rear structure that is questioned currently is based on a 1938 forecast that the former zoning administrator found that shows that back portion of the building. this is where the appellate is arguing. that permit was about to be issued and some work was done by appropriating the foundation below the existing structure and the -- building inspector came out there. looked at the steel or the contractor said, he does not
want to move forward until the permit was issued. the permit was going to be issue in the a week. inspector went through the building and we went ahead the contractor went ahead and powered the foundation from the inspector's direction. that's less [inaudible] it does not create issues with the building code. additional low, they moved forward with the 219 permitings issued. they moved forward with the work and found deterioration in the back. this building -- this building started off with a pitched roof. >> wareroom out, please. and there was a 1975 fire that took off the roof of the pitched
ceiling and the roof area. the building was [inaudible]. turn it upon around facing you. that the permit in 1975 for this prior damage. this is the way the building looked. prior to work done on it. i think the 1917 permit the original ordinance pulled. took out the sheet rock when this photograph was taken. the side of the building employed building was in disrepair. i want to show you thisch we upon went through a demolition congratulation process is for demo calculations we went through the demo calculations all 3 the walls did not [inaudible]. i'm not sure whether we need
another variance. >> thank you that is time >> planning went through the demo. >> thank you >> your time. president swig? >> i don't like to pick on architects we will not pick on you i will make the statement that based on the testimony if dbi and planning the breaches of going in and doing work without a permit they found the breaches related to the many activities that the previous owner did or continued by the current owner are the things that really frustrate this panel. >> i understand. >> i'm not asking i'm just i'm asking making a comment. >> and then do you understand. because it is a question. but when we because i like to bring the attention to the public and bring attention to the relatively new panel of
commissioners. when this commission has in front of it a laundz real lives violations of breaches, of law breaches of faith. i'm not going to be measuring anybody ethic's but breaches of honesty. it is really frustrating and i don't see a good future for this project tonight. other than become to dbi and planning to adjudicate accordingly to all the many regulations that seem to have been denied by your client. but -- do you understand this frustration? this is the stuff that drives me crazy. as somebody on this panel for
near low a decade. and i really have to call it out so that my fellow commissioners here again many of whom are relatively new or new tonight, understand this time behavior can't be tolerated. do you understand? i hope you will community that to your sponsor. >> i have and i understand and you know i have been doing this for a long time and through this frustation over and over we tried to inform the contractor and if there is an over demolition they have to stop the work and daul the building inspector and get an inspection notice. i understand and told you i would not take it outow you have a professional responsibility for other things like drawings. we submit the 2022 permit to correct the issues. including the calculations
planning was concerned about. >> we will get in a new chapter. thank you very much >> thank you. why we'll her from the appellate mr. gosch you have 3 minutes. >> president swig. vice president lopez. commissioners thank you. i question the 3 minutes we did not have a hearing last time. >> we you did have 7 minutes to address the board at the last hearing we had a full hearing on it. >> august 17th it was continued. >> it was continued after it was heard. >> okay. >> okay. i'm sorry. >> all right. you can knock me over with a faether the both department antagonizing me come to my way of thinking and -- am it seems
is that i would like to you direct the dbi to make that determination of the legality of construction. and -- seems like they are unwilling to do so the city attorney i sent a letter to him. this is the key to my argument. the appeal is i want this illegal construction remove friday the mid block open space. and there are many planning rule rules,llowing this. it is frustrating for me. i don't think i need to go further my former colleagues have they want the same things i want you like me to grant them. there is an outstanding outstanding thing director of dbi make a determination of legality of construction of this i know is illegal construction because there is no records of
it constructed t. is a simple matter of illegal construction. if there is a record in the permit history with plan its is legal construction. no permit no plans illegal. i want it out of the rear yard set become so. please make that happen. i don't know if i need go further i'm here if you have questions. president swig. >> a comment we caught the attention of dbi and planning you have gone on the record and made your request. and am i'm sure that plan and dbi heard your request and will consider it among vtd the list of other stuff. thank you very much for your contribution to these hearings. >> thank you, sir. >> vice president lopez. >> i think i like to make the comment that echo the
appreciation that president swig voiced and also fair to note that we do have to decide on the issue observe us which is that permit being challenged. also agree that i'm sure given the -- close look of the issues that there will be addressed to taken seriously. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. >> any public comment, raise your hand. >> okay. please, approach. >> hello. president swig, thank you for being here. and commissioners. i'm glad you are here, also. i'm annette and support what
remember my neighbor has been doing in regards to putting everything together. and i also am grateful for the planning commission and dbi, i know i really have lived in dog patch since 1984. and i know this this area of dog spasm unique and the open space areas they have that on 22nd street between minnesota and tennessee they are open yard stap and 2 on minnesota the one in question now going to have a big are look at the hopefully bring back some of the protruding stairway and decks put on without rhyme or reason. and i think that that's it. i'm grateful that it is taking a
second look. it really is an amazing little neighborhood. and all of those are old wooden buildings. and late 1800's and early 1900's. i appreciate you doing the hard work. thank you. >> thank you. >> any further public comment. i don't see any. commissioner this is matter is submitted. julie can i ask you a question i think will probably going in the direction of upholding the appeal and revoking the permit. is that would that be the motion? yea. >> mr. trasvina's question. it is simple. >> grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that it is not code compliant. >> okay. >> commissioners any comments?
related to this case? or it would that be an appropriate motion? >> i'm in full agreement with that approach going forward. >> okay >> anybody else? i will make that motion. >> go. >> fine. >> motion to grant the appeal on the basis that the permit was not purposely issued on the basis it is not code compliant >> we have a motion from vice president lopez to grant the appeal revoke the permit on the basis it is not code compliant and was not properly issued. on that motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> president swig. >> aye. that motion carries 4-0. what is happening that concludes that matter. item 5.
du get in touch with the requestors? they stated tins the tree had been remove exclude noted that the board told them a jurisdiction request does in the suspend the action that he thought this was moot and not attends based on those facts. >> okay. president swig do you want to hear from the determination hold and public works to close it out. we should take a vote. >> go through the >> since the requestor is not present we will hear from mr. gerhardt. welcome, you have 3 minutes. did you want to address the board? mr. gerhardt? i see hoe is present but we can't hear or see you.
may be he stepped away. >> yes, we hear you. >> i'm sorry i lost the >> no problem. requestor is not appearing you can address the board for 3 minutes >> i'm bill gerhardt the owner of the building submitted the request to remove 2 trees one was granted and the replace am. i think the issue is whether the tenants were notified properly the hearing was not posted on the tree that it was damaged. i talked with the city at san francisco public works. i paid the fee for the permit application they handled the process and notification. i received other calls from building asking about the hear and whether it needed to be
involved. i visited the property and post today and had a text of the posting may 25th from a tenant. it appeared me up during the course of the process and -- they were almost 3 months 48 days after the 15 day hearing notice. i reached out to spooem speak about why they were protesting and -- they were concerned about rise in heating or not heating air conditioning bills. i explained them the units did not have air congress the bill would not go up. i thought with removal of trees they would get more light and use less electric and less heating as well. they said leave it up to the city and see what happens.
i'm not sure. i followed the process as required. the tree was removed it was scheduled to be removed after the permit was granted and given the. delay and getting the schedule because of the businessness of the contractor, and fall following up with chris at public works and julia said the permit was still valid. went head and had the tree remove exclude replacement tree planted. that's all i have to say. thank you for the time. >> okay. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from public works. good evening will chris buck with san front public works urban forestry. we reviewed the request for
jurisdiction closely and don't believe that it meets the high threshold that the commission has set. you know the permit was not issued in error. the tree was properly posted with the notice. we post 4 notices on the corners of each block. we received written testimony from folks in the general public not on that block who monitor removal says city wide using the website and hearing process. they were not on the block but able to file letters of prosecute test the original application for removal of 2 trees the recommendation was to approve one. there already was a compromise here as a result in decision. nothing this we locked into regard thanksgiving matter. meets the threshold. no errors in notification the
process it has been was followed. and we support the applicant permit hold and asking to you deny the request for jurisdiction we have a robust permit process the new are commissioners will learn and it can take a long time to remove a tree in san francisco. so we believe the process was add hered to. and no mistakes made. and permit issued properly. >> thank you. >> president swig? >> sure. again. speaking as the old guy on the panel, my fellow commissioners will learn wrashd to trees they are hard to get removed. most of the time we are suffering from removal by trucks or middle of the night action of
an owner or nasty stuff in the a permission. tv i've seen many refused because of even had there is evidence of buckling of sidewalks or the breaking of sewage pipes or the connector between the house. the commissioners it is a hard thing to get a tree remove in the the city. that being said, can you inform the commissioners what how the tree made the high bar of getting removed. i will ask a follow up question. >> thank you, commissioner. at the staff level we received the removal application from the property owner seek to remove both trees during the evaluation of the application by certified
arborists we look at trees with health and sustainability of the site. the tree has to be in poor condition to approve for removal. during this process, observe the tree would not be rep pleasant okay were it approved for removal. meaning the minimum guidelines from utility and infrastructure could not be met. so that was something that was noted in this process. the applicant assumed if i get permission to remove both we plant both. sometime its it is an eye opener. applicant one of the trees can't be replanted. at the hearing the staff level we believe the trees were not as tall and large as other fiek us trees they are the 25 foot range. structure was fair. the hearing officer wanted to balance a bit of a history of limb and stem failures specific
low in san francisco. knowing there is that history of failures so it was a compromise. tree 2 this was approved, staff felt like if the tree is large teris a public safety concern. here an officer struck a middle of the road. very often staff denial may be upheld it at public works. we like to demonstrate that there is nothing when someone approaches our department, the resulting end decision is not a known. i can't guarantee that to anyone. upon even if a tree we initialled for removal. we come to the process with an open mind and really sort of let the public realm is a huge part of our process. and so that was something that occurred here and then the staff
whether he will we deny a tree for removal we issue this to the property owner and the property owner has to appeal with another later stating why they wish to appeal. there is back and forth before we get to a departmental hearing. and then that decision is appeal by the board. that is more about this case. sort of how we got to removing one of the 2 trees. as noted the applicant -- had a pre-existing contract to remove trees can take months to get on the schedule. i will state that we it is rare for us to be here before you with a jurisdiction request. typically tell is people may not agree with recommendations but the process really has to be followed. that is how you maintain public trust. we had one case a year ago we admitted we made a mistake a notification and issued happened a superceding decision to not
require that feel come before to you seek jurisdiction we missed a mistake and reissue a 15 day appeal window so they could appeal without coming to you first. there are human errors. if we finds that we will address it. and be responsible about that. the process is when we want to stick to even if again we might be on the opposite side at some point. >> follow up question is, in -- in many, many cases we have heard correct commentary that the tree canopy in san francisco is it has diminished and diminishing and that has to take care in making sure the canopy does not diminish i'm aline when there is a wagz when a tree is
removed or trees are removed. that the commentary guess, well, you just took down removed a tree or you are approving the removal of a tree, which is an older tree. fully matured contributing to cloning the air and making a better environment opposed to the baby tree you are about to replant. can you comment how in this case you did you confirm you did there was a new tree planted and 2, how does -- reconcile the issue of replacing a fa mature tree that cleans the air better
than the replace am which is obviously a baby tree and does in the do the same job. >> thank you, commissioner. it is true. the code urban forestry require when is a tree is removed it be replaced. we acknowledge the replace am tree can take a lodge time to grow before achieved the size it delivering the ecosystem services we want it to deliver economic, economic and social. it was the weekend of the hot weather we had a month ago when this jurisdiction request came in. all of the sudden we are pinned down by heat and you are running for shade and trying to figure out if you can convince someone inlagz your home. so -- without a dub, yes, our code says replace am trees are
required. we acknowledge that the replacement tree will take a language time to shade that apartment. that is another reason furthermore close review and being consistent with how we handle similar cases trees need to be in poor condition to approve them it takes a lot of plant to grow the urban forest. we will talk more about planting funding has been increasing and increased for this coming year and also when it come to development of which this was not, development related impact often we look for a greater replacement ratio even if it is not in our code. to mitigate the loss of trees in this case unrelated development and so -- it is a baby tree and that's an important reason why we hold on to the mature trees as much as possible.
>> i have to ask another follow up this is a good opportunity for a seminar. we will hear this stuff over and over again in the future. would you inform the commissioners and the public now that this tree has been replanted? >> correct. >> who is responsible for care and feeding of the tree so it makes it past its critical time and jump in maturity? >> that's right in this case the owner submitted the removal application the property owner is committed to watering the tree for 3 years. it takes street tree in san front about 3 years of weekly water to buildum enough of a root system it does not require is up elemental water after that. so the trees that we plant in san fremantle are drought tolerant.
can tloif in our climate we go half the year without significant rainfall. that 3 year establishment period we will upon you've been caution folks who are seek to remove a tree. you get a tree to be established you are not worried about small level vandalism from pedestrians walking by leaving a bar. have you to contend with cars but stake street tree in san francisco and even in the last 10 years it is more difficultful. it it is not easy. you are watering a tree do anything once a week. i know that i promised my daughter i will prove to her minute evermonday night when i need to bring out garbage come faster than friday night. witness a week it is a week. you gotta water it once a week fer 3 years. the property owners who plant the replace ams are invested in
making sure that happened. public works removes and replaces trees as well and it is a challenge. we planted 43 to 49 new trees in the tenderloin and the biggest challenge will keeping our eyeos them staked and protected during 3 years of watering. so it is both canopy size and resetting this clock and getting a young tree established. if is a lot of work to get a tree establish in the san francisco. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you >> you have questions? >> is there public comment on this item. raise your hand. i don't see public comment. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> julie, can you give us some suggestions, obviously this tree has been cut down. the tree has been replaced.
the whole issue related to the jurisdiction request acknowledged by the requestor is moot point. so -- what -- i mean i would personally stick with the jurisdiction request and the city intentionally caused the requestor to be late in filing the appeal f. you believe the city acted appropriately i would deny the request on the basis they did not cause the requestor to be late in filing the appeal. >> with that advice commissioners anybody have commentary to add rosenberg's suggestion. if not somebody would make a motion? i will move to deny the request for jurisdiction on the basis there is no error by the city and by the department in
granting the approval to remove the tree. yu want to stay city did not cause the requestor to be late in filing the appeal yoochl that's what i heard him say. >> we don't have these often. why a motion from commissioner trasvina to deny the request the bases the city did noings tensionally cause the requestor to be late in filing the appeal y. lopez. >> aye. >> eppler >> aye >> swig. >> aye >> the question is deny third degree is the ends of the hearing thank you for attending. >> thank you..
potpie and peach cobbler and i started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in
your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients and quality products and need to be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. who >> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open
ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the
2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪).
>> okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hybrid hearing for wednesday september 21, 2022. to enable public participation sfgtv is broadcasting and streaming this meeting live and we will receive public comment for each item and opportunities to speak during the public comment available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 2486-460-0483. we will take public comment from persons in