Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 16, 2010 5:00pm-5:30pm PST

6:00 pm
larry badner wants to dig in. it is below that surface. he wants to go down to the plate. that i think is unreasonable. that is unconscionable, an abuse of discretion if that is what they meant. i don't think they did mean that. but i am asking this board to give us some definition. that is all i am going to say at this point. thank you. >> i have a question. i am a little unclear about the posture of the case. it is an appeal of a notice of violation, but how did that get built? >> how did it get built? >> yes. why are we talking about something that is already built? >> because there was a submission for a different permit to change the plans. during the course of that submission, we acknowledge some work was done. one of those things that was
6:01 pm
done was part of this parapet project, cosmetic. when we applied for the permit to be adjusted, that opened us up to a design review, and that is when the neighbors asked for a design review. it is also important to note that your planning department recommended against the d.r. >> i think you have answered my question, and i think what you said was that it was built without a permit. >> it was built during the pendency of the permit process to get a change in that plan as far as i know. that is what i understand. >> thank you. >> counselor, in your brief you mentioned that you had to submit revisions multiple times, and you indicated it was
6:02 pm
somewhere around the third submission that you finally met the planner face-to-face? >> yes, sir. >> is there a reason for that, why that meeting didn't occur much earlier? >> i don't know the reason for that, but we have a witness here tonight that actually met with mr. fong, who is actually hear i believe as well. luckily, he's here. i don't know what the reason was. i wasn't part of this thing at the time this happened. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, acting zoning commissioner. i am here with ben fu. i am also here with kay connor, one of our enforcement planners, both of whom are familiar with this project. this is a notice of violation
6:03 pm
and penalty that was issued to enforce the decision of the planning commission. the planning commission required changes to the para perch et of this building, which has already been built. that was built in excess of a previous permit which was approved by this board. previously the board of appeals had approved a permit which didn't have one. i want to go through this so we have a better background of what has happened here. in june of 2005, the building permit itself was disapproved. this is prior to any notification being done on the addition. i have a photograph here of the building as it was ultimately constructed. the addition was appealed.his board. the board overturned the denial and upheld the permit and allowed the permit to be
6:04 pm
issued. this is without any section 311 neighborhood notification. the direction of the board was to make sure that the project complied with the residential design guidelines. the project was approved in december of 2006. sometimes in 2007, apparently work beyond the scope of what was authorized by this board occurred, and a revision permit was submitted in april of 2007 to correct what had happened here. in january of 2008, a section 311 noives went out -- notice went out. this was the first notice neighbors had received of this project, which was already under construction. there was a discretionary request review filed. that was heard by the planning commission in january of 2009. and yes, as the appellant noteded, the department did have a recommendation to approve the project as it is, but the commission, which has the ultimate decision power on this, made the decision that it needed to have the parapets
6:05 pm
lowered to six inches, and that there were certain other details, lighter colors, and more access to neighboring properties. in march, the appellant submitted a revision that met these requirements. it is important to note on these plans, if i can have the overhead please. thank you. this is shown as the height here. it was reduced to a height of six inches above the roof line. the department approved those plans in june of 2009, and it was ultimately routed on to the building department. after the planning department reviewed it, the appellant submitted revised plans. the building department, recognizing these revisions are not what planning had approved and clearly not what the planning commission had approved, routed it back to planning for review. at that point tgs true that there was a meeting with staff to go over the details of this, and it was made very clear that
6:06 pm
what they were proposing did not comply to the requirements of the planning code, which they had themselves already satisfied with their previous revision. there is the revision i think that we are working with now. the disagreement is regarding the six-inch height. the appellant is trying to claim six inches from this point here to the top. from the bottom of the cricket to the top. and the department is maintaining, as we had approved previously, six inches above the roof line here. it is important to note that it is currently 42 inches. it is not this as we see here. it is not what we had approved previously. it is 42 inches. so they do have to do work to reduce the height. we are enforcing the planning commission's decision to have it be no higher than six inches above the roof line, which is what this department had approved, and what the planning
6:07 pm
commission had approved. i think that goes over most of the details of this case. i am happy to answer any questions, and as i mentioned, we have ben and kay, who can answer questions as well. >> put the drawing back up, if you would, and carefully show me the cricket, what that is? >> this is the cricket here. i have learned a lot of about crickets in the last couple of weeks. deputy director kornfield would be best to describe it. when you have water sloping, you can't have it come at a right angle. it has to be at something shallower to accumulate the water and move it on. that is what the device serves. we are saying as per the planning commission's decision, it is to this point. >> what is the difference there between what they wanted and the other?
6:08 pm
>> about six informs. >> the difference between what they want -- >> and what the department had approved. >> and currently it is 42 inches? >> yes. >> so it is seven times over what has been approved? >> yes. which was all constructed without benefit of permit. >> thank you. >> what is the six-inch difference impact on the neighbors? >> i think the neighbors can speak to that. several of them are here this evening. it would be best to hear from them. we are very serious in enforcing the planning commission's decision. this was a previous decision of this board. it is odd that yes, they had exceeded the scope of the permit. something this board had authorized. and yet the process wrapped around to this board hearing it again. that is something that is difficult to enforce, this board's authorities and requirements because of this
6:09 pm
constant circular loop with the enforcement process rather than sending it to the city attorney for enforcement. it is continually brought back to this board.3 right? >> no comment. the appellant has just given me this photo that shows the cricket. the drainage cricket. >> can we go back to that photo? show me the bottom of the cricket. and go up the ankle. that is the ankle where it captions -- captures the water. and that is what? the >> we have the cricket here. >> that is 42 inches?
6:10 pm
>> yes. >> and it is currently built? >> yes. >> i am having trouble understanding how they built it. >> they went beyond the scope of the permit. that is how we got back into this process of revision. >> the appellant apparently feel that he exceeded his authority when he made the determination of what they have done. aside from plans that would be submitted and reviewed, is that something we could go to in order to determine the measure? >> that is an excellent question, and i would defer that to the building inspection.
6:11 pm
it is clear that under the plan encoder, they would be able to determine the decisions. we approved a compliant plans that, and they would like to change it to something else. >> i am with the building department. there are commissions for roof drainage. we have to slope so that the water will flow right way. the minimum slope is about a quarter of an inch. we would look at a building as it was under construction to make sure it did not exceed it was in the approved height within whatever reasonable tolerance is necessary to allow the minimum training standards.
6:12 pm
yes, there are some standards in that regard. president peterson: is their public comment on this item? if you wish to speak, please step forward. >> hello, hon. members of the board. i submitted my testimony to you on july 1 hoping that you would read it. it comes from my heart, and it is the truth. let me cut right to the chase and read my last paragraph.
6:13 pm
protecting the rights of the homeowners in san francisco and the public, please uphold the rules and regulations that are in place and have been working. don't let them get away with this deliver it circumventing of the city and the neighbors, and the purposeful ignoring of neighbors. make them removed the curb height efforts. it is a small consequence of their actions. punish them for trying to cheat the system. if you let them go, you're saying to the public that you can go ahead and build anything you want and claim hardship later. this falls on the neighbors. they have to live shrouded in shadow.
6:14 pm
please do not make any more mistakes. i want to say to the zoning administrator, they made the correct call, 6 inches is standard construction. 6 inches is in the building code. the intersection of the roof is in the building code. thank you. >> if i may ask you a question. in early testimony, the council said that you are still willing to compromise? >> that came at an 11th-hour phone call today. i cannot make any decisions at this time. >> as far as you're concerned,
6:15 pm
it is totally reasonable, you offer no compromise? >> we offered it even after the -- we were trying to be reasonable. we were ok. we sent the neighbors to go look at it. >> i am just asking you if today, you are offering a compromise. >> i would like to hear her. >> it came at the eleventh hour. >> it is fine if you're not willing to compromise, i was just curious if you had said that. >> there are a lot of trust issues here. there are other people here, too. president peterson: next
6:16 pm
speaker, thank you. >> this is what i see from my backyard. that long, brown wall, this is my neighbors. they have a third floor addition. they did it the right way. they built without a permit. they have done it the completely wrong way. i lived three houses away. the third floor addition is so overbuilt, whenever i looked to the north, i see this longwall, the third floor edition.
6:17 pm
it looks like an ugly, dark, blank billboard. it reduces circulation. it affect me and many of my neighbors. they had every chance to work with that and they chose not to do so. there is a line in the first page of their letters. they said they consulted with the neighbors, and it is total bs. there is this misleading drawing after construction began, it shows nothing about it. they circulate this facades and they deliberately kept me out of it. this has been a disaster from the beginning. if there is any anger, it is because they have created it. they have acted in completely bad faith.
6:18 pm
it is really harming. >> would you go back to the first picture you put up? if we were to uphold the department, could do retraced what is done? >> i think the whole thing should be turned down. >> if you could so we could see it. >> i know that you would like it all turned away -- thrown away, but can you approximate would be thrown away if we uphold the vote? >> there is a line there, but it is so faint. >> traced it with your hand. >> trace across the screen with your finger. >> there is a faint truckline -- chalk line. this might have been taken before the line was done.
6:19 pm
>> it was 42 inches. >> that is not the third floor. >> this is the third floor addition. that was not there when i brought my property. >> i understand. >> i would like to see that picture again, please. >> you see this device there? that is their air conditioning. it sits on top of the roof. i don't have access to the roof, obviously.
6:20 pm
>> i don't know if this is from the same ankle or not, but i think it shows -how much of the roof is there. we can see the framing straight up and down. the portion that is being proposed is all except 6 inches of that wall that we can see. >> what is the function? why would someone do 42 inches? >> if you have nothing at the edge of the roof, or will hit the roof and down into the space between adjoining buildings. in many cases, that is fine. in san francisco, you want to stop the water and run it down
6:21 pm
some kind of gutter or something to get rid of it. that is something that we would call a curve. the water runs down, and because you can't put this roofing membrane -- you can't make it do sharp and, there is a strip with an angle in there. the angle allows the roofing to come down and go at an angle so that it doesn't break the membrane. as the curve goes up, it is defined as a fire wall extension, a minimum of 30 inches high.
6:22 pm
there are typically required to provide a separation between buildings. the building code says it has to be at least 30 inches high to be called that. the building code also says that in lieu of it that might be required for fire separation, you can put a roof on the building and not have to build this fire wall between the buildings. my recollection of reading the previous rule, the board approved this and we are in a conundrum. that is the difference between a curve. i hope that helps. president peterson: is there anyone else that would like to speak on this?
6:23 pm
please step forward. >> the evening. i am a neighbor. i just want to say that the pictures here, if you can show that projection, this is what we sissies from her house. as you can see, she took this picture around midday. you can see the comparison of the building. in your efforts to find the truth today, please consider that the appellants have distorted the facts. they use their neighbors to write letters of support, but they didn't tell any of us what they really had in mind to build and that it would be so
6:24 pm
massive. once the neighbors saw how oversized it would be, the residents would ask for small changes in the construction. the disregard for the law was added to the dishonesty because they did not work with us. this this regard continued until work was completed and up until the discretionary review. the slanders letters were obviously written by the appellant and signed by neighbors. it was written by a couple that speaks very little english. it implicates my husband as well. these ridiculous letters are signed by those with whom they socialize and we believe will sign anything for them.
6:25 pm
even lies like these. why would they do something like this? because they want to win at any cost. they have decided to go before the board and get what they want. i am out of time. president peterson: next speaker. >> the evening. i would like to give you a little bit of history about this lot. the first homes on a 700 block of the registry were built in the late 50's. my family home was built in 1963.
6:26 pm
when the original contractors decided to build the adjacent homes in the middle of the bloc , the original homes were told that the view would be blocked because lots were only half the size of the adjacent lots. this would obstruct the views of 793, 77, 781, and 775. the street by them has houses cutting them in half. they both were built in the early year 1964.
6:27 pm
later on, they built that. i was here at a hearing last year and heard both sides of the arguments. i still do not feel the complaints are warranted or valid. it stands out as one of the nicest. if you were to cut down as far as the department is wanting them to, it would obstruct the view of the park. president peterson: next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. i was not here when you swore in all of the potential speakers. i am willing to do that if you feel is necessary as a matter of
6:28 pm
form. i will be speaking the truth. i can swear to that. president peterson: if you swear to that now, that is fine. >> i am a neighbor to doris up the hill. you heard from my wife a short time ago. you can sense be a motion, and it comes from the fact that all of us who are here opposing the appeal feel betrayed. we were friends. we had the appellants over to our house for dinner during the construction of this addition because their kitchen was torn up. it was during that time that the framing begun. we had gone with them to this board.
6:29 pm
we wrote letters in support, we had no problem with it, and we supported it. we didn't know at that time what the entire project was going to look like, certainly not how high or how big it was going to be. we were friends, we were concerned that we would have a problem. when we saw the framing beginning shortly before the picture of that, that is a view from our kitchen. it hadn't quite reached this point. we saw how high it was coming, we went to the appellants and we said hey, we saw the pitched roof. we went to them and said,