I am a second year student at the college of law and i am working under inaudible in the housing klen ing clinic and i will be representing these tenants of the golden gate Street Property and we request the jurisdiction because on june 4th they filed with the Planning Department requesting notification for all permits in the building after receiving notification that they were applying for a building permit. But before, the permit had been issued. And the tenants feared being displaced from the homes during the course of these renovations as they would have to leave the property during that time. The permit in question was issued on june 24th without any review from the Planning Department as a result of that, the tenants were not aware that the permit had been approved until july 15th when the counsel fox happened to be checking the department of building inspection for another matter regarding inspections of the unit. The tenant filed this request for a jurisdiction on the same day
That the nature of the 295, and determinations was pretty much what i would call a conditional or an environmental type of review and therefore, not a permit type of review. And we know that those types of reviews as conducted by any of the departments that are not appealable to this board and i think that is a correct call. I think that i agree and i dont see anything in the charter that will give us jurisdiction over this determination and nothing under a 309, 295 and so i would not support the jurisdiction request. Okay. Move to deny the jurisdiction request. Okay, thank you. If you could call the roll on that please . We have a motion from commissioner fung . To deny this request and not evoke the subject matter jurisdiction. On that motion to deny president hwangs absent, commissioner hurtado . Aye. Vice president lazarus. Aye. Commissioner honda . Aye. Thank you. The vote is 40, and subject matter jurisdiction is not evoked, thank you. Thank you. Item four b is reschedule, and we
Appealable to this board and i think that is a correct call. I think that i agree and i dont see anything in the charter that will give us jurisdiction over this determination and nothing under a 309, 295 and so i would not support the jurisdiction request. Okay. Move to deny the jurisdiction request. Okay, thank you. If you could call the roll on that please . We have a motion from commissioner fung . To deny this request and not evoke the subject matter jurisdiction. On that motion to deny president hwangs absent, commissioner hurtado . Aye. Vice president lazarus. Aye. Commissioner honda . Aye. Thank you. The vote is 40, and subject matter jurisdiction is not evoked, thank you. Thank you. Item four b is reschedule, and we will call four c. Subject property at 1980 golden gate avenue. Letter from raquel fox, attorney for john tynan, Kurt Mueller Jason thrupp, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa no. 2013 05 16 7130, which was issued on june 24, 2013; the appea
Italians and well as others living in San Francisco and contributing in San Francisco. And allowing a museum that gives the new development to permit the people from out of town to see San Franciscos commitment to diversity and San Franciscos commitment to the historical routes and if you do have jurisdiction to rule on the item to be an asset to San Francisco. Next speaker please . Good evening, lazarus and commissioners, my name is inaudible and i am a former president of the San Francisco Lawyers Association and also a life member. I am a former assistant District Attorney in the city and county of San Francisco. I am here comment on behalf of 706 mission and the Mexican Museum. Those of us who have been members of this community for so long, the Hispanic Community about been waiting for a very long time to realize a dream. You can be assured that the appeals are brought without permit, and they are indeed, frivilous on behalf of the Lawyers Association and the Hispanic Community an
Thank you members of the board. And the claim here is that the Planning Commission abused the discretion of 309 of the planning code because it made determinations that do not comply with 295 and because it made determinations that did not comply with sequa. So on the section 295 issues, the Planning Commission voted to increase the acl, or the annual limit for shadow and to allocate that to this project entire and with that increase or action was not going to have a significant effect on the use of the park. And the state law that applies here, requires the Planning Commission to trace the route that it takes from the evidence to the findings and the findings of no significant effect is not supported by the evidence and did not provide any route between and several respects. One is that the 295 decisions are actually not enforcable because it is not clear, what the final number is in terms of total maximum that would be permitted. And to demonstrate that using the motion holder figure