Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 16, 2010 6:00pm-6:30pm PST

7:00 pm
our 102 year-old home has a different shaped light well, but we should not be punished because we own an old building with an irregularly shaped light well. building a similar shaped light well will only create a tunnel effect and will not provide an adequate light and air corridor. we respectfully request this board address the plans of light and air reduction by providing a squared off, and other light well applied in the setback. -- and gather light well in the setback. we proposed a generous 6 foot 6 inch setback for the vermont northside neighbors to ensure privacy issues.
7:01 pm
we realize the project's sponsors inc. significant side setbacks on the north side of their project to follow the building code to allow the installation of large glass windows on the northern side. we ask why we are not treated as kindly and why our windows' light and air have not been considered with some respect and guidelines. with the generous portside setback of the project, the building is pushed towards our side without equal consideration. this does not make sense. the project sponsors have been over-generous by giving 706 for not an additional 6 foot 6 inches that is required by the building code. -- by giving 706 vermont an
7:02 pm
additional 6 foot 6 inches. it actually preserves the light for the middle bathrooms. it was unfortunate that the planning commission's attention was wrongly made to believe that our proposal was really based on the assertion that what we really wanted to do was stop the effect of the project from taking away our roof deck of view. all lavar written and verbal comments have been addressing the light and air. none of what we have proposed will provide any changes to the loss of our view. we have an art and realize views are not protected in the great city of san francisco. please consider the sequence of actions that reflect the planning department's oversight and complete disregard for our
7:03 pm
concerns, and consider our proposal to correct the oversights made by the residential design team and provide our property's to veterans with adequate light and air protection. -- prop. bedrooms with adequate light and air protection. president peterson: you will have rebuttal, too. go ahead. >> at that d.r. meeting, their architect stated that if he gave us that 5 foot setback, it would take away 65 square feet of their floor plan. true, but if he did not give us that setback, if that is not incorporated in those plans, we will lose 200 square feet. that does not make sense.
7:04 pm
those two bedrooms at need the light. commissioner hwang: i had a question, but i will wait. president peterson: could you put those pictures back up? i am looking at bedroom number one, looking west. you need to move the microphone over. >> here is bedroom number one, looking to the west. president peterson: there it is, ok. there appears to be a wall in front of that pattern. what is that? >> that is their building. president peterson: so the proposal, when they add on to the top of that wall, is to set back 5 feet? >> what we currently have, we have sunshine and air coming in. and my answering a question?
7:05 pm
vice president goh: please continue. >> when they add the additional height of the building, it will block off that light and reduce the amount of air that will come into our windows. vice president goh: and the proposed matching light well, is the expectation that wall will be set in in the same triangle, nearing your triangle, or is it only above the wall? >> you're asking about the triangular set back from this wall? vice president goh: above it. >> it will make a difference in that portion. vice president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner hwang: your request is a rectangular well for a five-foot setback. and it is based on your judgment. >> for foot setback or
7:06 pm
adequately shake rectangular white well. commissioner hwang: i am trying to understand the photograph as well. there is a triangle currently, and the proposal is the triangle will continue up? >> right. commissioner hwang: so what you are suggesting is what? >> more light and air access. commissioner hwang: cut into what would otherwise be the proposed structure? >> either/or. commissioner hwang: i understand the five-foot setback. i'm trying to understand the light well. >> on the other side, we have a light well that is rectangular in shape, and the building on the northern side, the other side of us, we have a light well that is actually created so
7:07 pm
there is light that comes in. ok, this is what is currently there. you have seen where the roof ends. >> that is the plan view. that is to scale plan view, 1 foot, and it shows the 10 foot square what room with the window but it up against this. -- butted up against this. this is the side view, showing the roofline of 708. we have this much light coming in from the sun rise in the morning, the sunset in the bedroom. the rest comes in, the east
7:08 pm
comes in this way. this is the high arched ceiling. we have that much like, man. if they build up and match this very unusual light well, if they match it, that is what we're trying to get out of it. commissioner hwang: so how does the rectangle work? commissioner fung: commissioner hwang, if you take a rectangular cutout out of the permit holder on the triangle, it will make it bigger than what they are proposing to match, and that is what they would prefer. commissioner hwang: okay, and that would be slightly less than the 5 foot setback? commissioner fung: potentially. >> we would prefer the 5 foot setback, but we realize that has
7:09 pm
to be some compromise. that would be our compromise. >> the 5 foot setbacks would take up 65 square feet of the footprint. if they matched the light well, it would be a tunnel of fact. if they come back 5 feet and give us anything, square, rectangle, anything that gives light to those veterans, -- to those veterans, -- to those bedrooms. president peterson: let's hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, madame president, and members. i know it is late into the night. i am here to speak on behalf of the permit holders and the
7:10 pm
architect. at this point i will cut to the chase. i think we have had good discussion to the issue. the issue is light, the issue is the planning department found in its analysis the matching light well. the project required at the light well, but the residential design guidelines are clear about situations like this, providing a matching light well. the point of the matching light well is to provide more reflective material towards the windows. i think what is important note is what we really have here. we already have the tunnel affect of the overhead. there is not a lot of light tickets into the windows. these are north facing windows. the way the sun is in the sky, there is typically not any direct light or very little during the course of the year. again, here is a measurement that shows this.
7:11 pm
we take this uphill property facing north, there is very little direct sunlight that it's in there. i called into question in my papers and photographs. the other important thing, if you take the long rectangular quite well, you will actually lose habitable space. i also don't want to dismiss the loss of the 5 foot setback as nominal. we're talking 65 feet 1/8 small family room. this has been a two-year project, the impetus of which was to build an additional store quite modest in size. i would like to show you the envelope drawings that we have provided and remind you what they could have built under the planning code was significantly taller and larger and more massive, both at the front of you and rear view. it is only building 265% of the planning code permitted. they have been very respectful
7:12 pm
to all their neighbors, providing generous front setbacks. the setbacks referred to one the other side of the property, again, it is built for that side of the property. we're talking an uphill neighbor and downhill neighbor. downtown neighbors are more likely to experience privacy in packs, so the setback is to minimize the privacy impact on them. that is a five-foot requirement. the uphill place is not in the same situation, uphill by a significant slump, and there already is a tunnel effect. -- uphill by a significant slope. whether we do rectangular light well or 5 foot setback, it will not change the existing light conditions. you cannot change the configuration, and it seems what they can do is well within their control by installing skylights
7:13 pm
and removing the deck railings, as the planning department noted in their own analysis as chatelin -- as shadowing that area. for the olivos to make concessions on my client -- i am sorry, i need the overhead. i think for them to ask for my clients to bear the expense and brought of redesigning their project, which is what would result from either the 5 sot -- 5 foot setback or rectangular well which will not change the existing light conditions, they cannot be given the way the earth and the sun move, given the slope, giving the assistant feature of their building -- given the existing features of their building. the planning department residential design team went through a thorough analysis, they addressed this.
7:14 pm
commissioner borton's comments reflected my issues. the residential design guidelines gives the designer several approaches on how they can address the impact. in this case, matching light wells is a common technique, not unusual, and it will not impair the light conditions that are already poor. because of the light well and reflective material, this may actually improve the light conditions. a rectangular light will not have an effect. the 5 foot setback would cause a whole reworking of the program with the expense. it is not a mere loss of 65 feet, it is a way to reconfigure all the uses they intend to have building this of so they can build a family and entertain and have their family stay overtime.
7:15 pm
>> good evening. piney ms. angela kang. my husband and i are the product sponsor. like many newlyweds, we were not able to afford our dream house, but we bought a house with a lot of potential. we have made many improvements, but our house is no longer large enough. my husband and not like to start a family. we also have family members visiting regularly throughout the year. currently, i have my parents, three nieces, and nephew, visiting for weeks. we would like to expand our house to have a master suite and family home large enough to accommodate our growing family and visiting family. we have really tried to work with the olivos, but it has been difficult. last year we offered a full- scale mockup at our expense to address their concerns. they canceled the experiment on the advice of their attorney. we also accommodate their
7:16 pm
request for a matching light well prior to their filing of the discretionary review. now they want us to reduce our family room or by adding a set back along the entire rear property walt that adjoins our roof deck, well beyond the light well. this would make our family room 12 foot by 14 feet in size. that is not large enough because we plan on using the family room to double as a guest bedroom. it would require us to reconfigure that third floor design. it will spend a lot of time and money, over two years. we were defending this project. they are the only neighbors who filed for discretionary review and are the only neighbors appealing are building permit. we have over 70 immediate neighbors to the project and several are here to speak on our behalf. i would like to conclude that we would like to remain in our house many years and we hope you will approve our building permit without change. thank you.
7:17 pm
commissioner garcia: perhaps you'd prefer the architect answer, but you have exit c that had to do with -- exhibit c that had to do with mitigation measures. if you could show that again and kind of help me understand it, how that would help? >> if you look at the picture -- if i might have the overhead, please? the way the sunshine comes, the railings cast shadow. it was not just me saying this, it was the planning department. the d.r. request is existing roof deck shades the space and prevents southern light from entering the bedroom windows below. commissioner garcia: so the rails you are referring to --
7:18 pm
let's see if they could perhaps put it back. >> overhead, please? commissioner garcia: face to the south. >> no, no.. commissioner garcia: but the sun is coming from behind, which would be the south. >> if we could have the overhead, please? commissioner garcia: thank you. >> the idea is we have a narrow space, narrow area. i think the most telling drawing to provide it our exhibit "i," which are the sunlight drawings. they show even under the best of circumstances, which would be
7:19 pm
june 21 when the sun is at the highest in the sky -- sorry. overhead, please? there is almost no direct light. this is just the nature of the some movement in the sky. the architect explained that, as mad as the sun changes its location in -- but as a myth as the sun changes its location in the sky. even june 21, when the sun is at the highest in the sky, there is no direct light. the benefit of a light well is more likely to capture the light and reflect it into the existing tunnel. i think it would improve the light conditions.
7:20 pm
what they are proposing, the light conditions are so poor that you cannot suddenly get enormous amounts of direct sunlight into that room based on the feature on their house. there are alternatives. they could at fairly low cost install skylights, as compared to ask my clients to reconfigure their 2-year-long project. icommissioner garcia: if you could put c back once more. it would appear that the greater light blockage in the wintertime would come from the building's south of them. >> yes, 712 vermont. it is a very tall building. this is a good way to see how the bloc works, in terms of slope. again, here are the taller buildings uphill, which clearly
7:21 pm
cast shadow as well. these are all existing conditions that will be improved vastly beyond the v-shaped light well and compliance -- and complies with the residential design guidelines. vice president goh: i am looking at the plans. i am looking at 82.1, which is the first and second, and then 82.2, which is the third floor and the roof. on the third floor and roof, i see the triangle -- if you could put that up? >> you are referring to this? vice president goh: that is the matching light well. >> exactly. vice president goh: it is not on the second-floor proposed.
7:22 pm
you not carrying that triangle might well down. >> that is the existing building. vice president goh: you are not changing that. so it was said that you would lose some of your family it room if you were to make that a rectangle. i am not seeing that on this drawing. it appears there are two closets on either side of that triangle that you could use. commissioner hwang: if i might, what i was referring to with the loss of the family room was the 5 foot setback, going back 15 feet. with respect to the rectangular light well, again, it would not improve the poor like conditions. if you had reflective materials painted on the outside of the wall, it would reflect
7:23 pm
significantly more light than a matching light well. i don't think it would improve or change the existing tunnel effect. vice president goh: okay, i might disagree with you on that. i don't know yet. but looking at these drawings, it looks like you have some square footage to spare, a closet. >> in regards to the quality of light, square compared with triangle, i would contest there would be no difference in the light quality reflected. vice president goh: okay, thank you. president peterson: mr. sanchez? actually, more questions for council. commissioner hwang: with the respect to work with the
7:24 pm
appellants, could you address that? i don't know if you have that. >> the architect was also here. we submitted our plans in march and had neighborhood notification prior to 3/11. the architect was there. the olivos did not come, but their daughter came. after that, we have our plans approved by the planning department, and the olivos, we met with them and they wanted us to match the light well. we had a meeting with them at the end of june and which matched the light well. i sent them an email copy of the plan, and they said that was their one and all the request was us to match the light well. we did that in early july. 10 days later, they filed for
7:25 pm
discretionary review saying no modifications had been made on their behalf. they actually have not been honest. i think the planning department has all the records. even after we filed, even after we gave them what they asked for, which was a modification of our plans, which would not have and had been approved, they still filed for discretionary review. at that time, they said that is not sufficient, we want more. they keep asking for more, and it has dragged on over a year. they're the only neighbors to -- we have worked with all the other neighbors. i have a lot of neighbors willing to speak on our behalf. it i don't know why they're continuing to say we have not worked with them when we have. we actually even offered to do a study. we were going to hire a contractor to put up boards on the wall and monitor the light into their rooms. when we met with them, they
7:26 pm
agreed to do that. we scheduled a time. today's before that experiment was to happen, they canceled -- two days before that experiment was to happen, to cancel the experiment, they told us their attorney told them to not have the experiment. they said computer-generated drawings would be better to document the light, and that is what we provided, but we were willing to do mockups, address their concerns, and they are the ones who refused the experiment. there is only so much we can do. commissioner hwang: the computer-generated -- >> not they never provided them. commissioner hwang: is that in the packet? >> yes. vice president goh: i have a follow-up question. >> actually, there could be some confusion on the legal side. we did not recognize the light well because it is not considered a legal light well
7:27 pm
with the building code. the light law has to be at least 10 feet in length. the planner did not actually require us to recognize the light well because they felt it was not a legitimate light well. >> i am not sure if my question is better directed at council, the idea of maybe putting and skylights on the appellants property over those veterans -- over those bed rooms and how that might be an effective way of getting a light in their. but also seems less expensive than the whole process. i wonder in the discussions if you offered that up as a possible -- >> i don't believe that had come up previously.
7:28 pm
>> it definitely would have been less costly because they filed for discretionary review and a hired attorneys, and now we are here. they never asked for that. they only asked for us to match their light well. that is well before the discretionary review was filed. we did that for them. commissioner hwang: my point is your attorney has a very good idea, in my opinion. >> at this point, they have cost us some much money with all the appeals, hiring attorneys. we have had to defend the discretionary review. commissioner fung: thank you. i think we have the answer. president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> thank you, skat sanchez. i will be brief. -- scott sanchez. i will be brief. i think the permit holders have done an excellent job going
7:29 pm
through all the issues the early. i would give you some of the procedural issues. there is an excellent summary of that in the permit holders brief, which has the discretionary review time line. they did the required pre- application meeting, the project was submitted to the department. initially, upon first review by the department, we did not think the light well needed to be matched. that is true. the building permit notification was sent out. during this time, the neighbors met and came toward resolution of incorporating the light well. the department supports that. it does not specifically address the design guidelines. those changes were made. the discretionary review was still filed. the item was taken to the planning commission on the discretionary review in january, i believe,the planning commissio uphold