A couple of items of interest to San Francisco real estate home owners, buyers and sellers from the March 5, 2008 Department of Planning Board of Appeal's meeting.

(4) Appeal No. 08-018
455 Vallejo Street

Sandeep Hingorani (Appellant) vs. DPW and Bureau of Street-Use & Mapping (Respondent).

In order to do work on a building on Montgomery Street, a crane was placed by Sheedy Crane across the street from 455 Vallejo Street. The owner, Hingorani's representative, argued that the Path of Travel requirements were not being observed, and wanted restrictions placed on the location and use of the crane. 

After testimony from both sides, the Board agreed keep the crane in it's current proposed location, but to increase the Path of Travel requirements from 10'
to 11' for day use and from 12' to 18' at night.

The board also directed the DPW/BSM representative (who was present) to provide the Hingorani representative with a direct phone number to call for violation reports, and for an inspector to be available for any problems.

Sheedy agreed and the appellant voiced agreement.

If the goal of the appellant (the person with the complaint) is to just get equipment removed because they do not like it, you probably will not succeed. But the Board of Appeals will hear a complaint and judge it on its merits.

Here the Board would not remove the crane as Sheedy demonstrated that this was the best location out of all possible locations that were available. Sheedy suggested the increased distance for the Path of Travel, and it was agreeable to all sides.

(6) Appeal No 07-230
1884 San Jose Avenue

Keith Foote (Appellant) vs. DPW and Bureau of Urban Forestry (respondent).

Foote argued that the decision of the respondent (DPW) to remove a 33 year old tree in front of his residence was wrong. That it was their lack of proper maintenance of the tree that caused the current problems, and that DPW should be directed to nurture the tree back into good health and condition.

DPW and the BUF argued that the tree needed to be removed and that it was the fact that the roots were very aggressively destroying the sidewalk and that this was causing a hazard that necessitated the decision. And that nurturing the tree back into health was not likely do to the species of tree.

President Garcia remarked that it was the first time he heard of a homeowner being the appellant with the DPW and BUF as respondent in a case like this. But it was
Commissioners Haaland, Knox and the new Peterson who overruled the DPW and directed the DPW to work to bring the tree into good health and conformity regarding safety issues.

NOTE FOR HOMEOWNERS: Homeowners are responsible for the condition of sidewalks in front of their property. The city can and does issue 30 day notice to repair notices to homeowners to correct deficiencies in the condition of sidewalks.