Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 16, 2010 6:30pm-7:00pm PST

7:30 pm
it was a vote in borden, miguel, and along the held. commissioners antonini, lee, and sugaya had opposed. we are in support. we believe this means the residential design guidelines. >> is this a sufficient size to be considered de light well? >> i am not sure what may become compliant. >> if either party were to -- if the appellants were to put in ventilation or whatever is
7:31 pm
necessary -- >> i would say we reviewed it. it was extremely close to the property line. i think our initial impression was that it was not legal. i think that was perhaps the miscommunication made early on. >> i think it meets the requirements. >> but today that wall of the second story would be not allowed to be built across windows. is that right? >> i think now, coming forward and having the experience we are having on this case, we would have that bill. >> and you. >> i am with the building department. the building code -- the california building code says
7:32 pm
that buildings that were illegally built at the time of construction can be retained. this building is 102 years old. at that time, i am not aware of any regulation that would prohibit this window spacing and so on. under state laws, you are permitted to retain it. it certainly does not meet todays requirements. bedrooms do have certain requirements for windows size, light and ventilation, and so on perhaps these were originally bedrooms. i do not know. but i want to say this provides tremendous amounts of light, much more than normal windows. skylights in these rooms really brightened the room
7:33 pm
tremendously. operable skylights are very common in san francisco. the provide ventilation as well as light. you could have a poll that screws open the sky like a little bit. you get a lot of ventilation. i recommend that to people all the time. it is usually bathrooms that hold mildew. i think that is a very effective thing. skylights are -- they let in more than twice the light of a vertical window. president peterson: i tried to sleep in a room with one of them. i am taking about tomorrow. [laughter]
7:34 pm
then here. >> to clarify one thing one of the factors that contributed to the system was the fact that the existing building did not have a light well. i just wanted to clarify that. vice president goh: the existing building? >> the lower buildings do not have a light well. that is one of the factors that entered into our original position to not have a light well. vice president goh: i would ask the project sponsor whether they were intending to put in the matching white. president peterson: the existing court is going to remain intact. if people who are interested in
7:35 pm
public comment could please raise your hands, so i know how many people are going to speak. if you would please line up against the far wall for me that would be much appreciated. we can start with public comment. given the hour -- commissioner garcia: we need a break. >> each person will be given a minute to speak. please step forward. >> good evening. thanks for taking the time and staying so late. i am going to deviate from a prepared speech because we have cover these topics. i have been through this process before myself. dr is supposed to be four things that are extraordinarily unusual. this is not unusual. two stories is unusual.
7:36 pm
they are going down to the minimum of what is in this neighborhood. i do not see why they should do anything special. second, i see people work through the same process. moved in 5 feet on the other side. they retain the views from their deck. this is an income property. if you retain the use of the deck you get several hundred more dollars in rental. that is what this is about. i promise when the highlight this property to renters, they do not highlight the skylight. the highlight the deck with the view of the golden gate bridge. president peterson: next speaker, please. commissioner garcia: did the baby want to speak on this issue? [laughter] >> my name is michelle hughes.
7:37 pm
i live at 398 pennsylvania. we have known and the need for several years. we would like the couple to remain in the neighborhood. it is too often that many young couples move into the neighborhood and cannot get their house built and move out. we have three children. that is why we extended our house. i know they are planning on having children. there is not enough room. it is often that people need to extend their house in the neighborhood. i know they carefully thought about the need for a larger house and thought about the impact. the worked hard with their architect to come up with a modest design that gave them enough room to build their family. they did not keep a huge house. the kept it to a minimum. they have been working on this process for over two years. further delays would be unfortunate. president peterson: next speaker, please.
7:38 pm
>> my name is ron harrison. i live around the corner from angela and anthony. to cut to the quick, i feel we are seeing an egregious abuse of this process. the real issue is the loss of the view. i was at the commission meeting where commissioner miguel, who lives on the block, stated that he introduced the tenants, who all agreed there loss of the view was the greatest concern. the concern was not one of light and air. that is a species point. skylights could be easily placed. i have one in my home which is operable. i have venetian blinds in it. it is electrically powered. i know you can get them in many shapes to come form to whatever their needs are. the concerns for cost are also specious. they are allowed by the rent board to passed this cost on to their tenants.
7:39 pm
it costs the landlords no money at all. president peterson: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, board members. it is getting late. i live across the street at 705. i am an architect. i am familiar with the residential design guidelines. i have reviewed the plan with angela. i feel they have done a really good job of preserving views, not only for above but below. i am going to make it really short and say at agree with the planning department that the addition would have low impact on the light entry to windows in question. i have the same exact light well. mine faces south and i do not get direct sunlight, but i do get a lot of ambient light. that helps. i think that if there was a
7:40 pm
light -- a matching light well with a very bright piece of all, they are probably going to get more ambient light in that room. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i live at 707. my house is located behind in gillette and anthony kang's house. i support their plans to add a master bedroom to a family edition. i appreciate neighbors like anthony and angela who invest in their homes. i think this increases property values. i am glad they are taking care of their property and have decided to expand their home rather than leave the city. i think an extra family room is perfectly reasonable. their design seems thoughtful to their neighbors while meeting
7:41 pm
the requirements for a larger home. i do not see any reason the plan should be altered. i believe there are wonderful for our neighborhood. i support their plan. thank you. president peterson: next speaker, please. >> my name is dan collins. i am a home owner at 735, across the street from the house owned by laura. they showed me the drawings in question. there will be light and air flow, but no side set back on the south side. i believe the loss of natural light in the air from the two bedrooms and makes these rooms hard to live in. i have a skylight which is three to 4 feet in my house.
7:42 pm
the disney little to no raise. but i do have a bedroom which allows light and air to come in. i am in the lower level of a two-story building. i appreciate that they are asking to restore their bedrooms natural light and air. president peterson: next speaker. >> my name is kevin. i am the current tenant. i live in one of the bedrooms we are talking about. i am moving out into weeks. it has nothing to do with this. i am moving in with my girlfriend. this whole process has been in same for me to witness. it seems like the neighbors have been changing the facts and the lionizing when landlords, who are trying to protect these bedrooms. you can see from this photograph. that is one of the bedrooms. he is getting some light in the face. this photo here -- that is the
7:43 pm
son. you can see the sun from the bedroom. when they say there is already limited light it is not true. it is a good source. our proposal protect that view of the sun, that angle that sets. that has a profound impact "putting minimal impact on what they are proposing. they still get everything. they get the view. it is not about the view. it is about the light. president peterson: next speaker. >> my name is harold. i have lived across the street from these folks for over six years. everything they are trying to do is within the confines of the law. i do not understand what all of this objection is. i think this is a gross waste of taxpayers' money. president peterson: thank you. next speaker please.
7:44 pm
>> my name is devon swisher. i am directly across the street from the kangs' house. i have lived in the area for 12 years. i love living in our neighborhood. i support neighbors that want to live on the hill in their home. i fully support their decision to expand their house. the design, i feel, is entirely an upgrade for our neighborhood. the current house does not have much in the way of a design is that going for it now, so we are not losing anything. living in a dense city, it is a given neighbors will remodel their homes. it is part of the process of evolving our homes. i think it is something they have been sensitively and met challenges with our
7:45 pm
neighborhood. i see this every day when i open my curtains. i am the person directly across from it. i support their improvement. president peterson: is there anyone else who wishes to speak? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. appellants, you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> thanks. i bought the house 39 years ago. we lived in it for 20 years. we rented out for the last 19 years because we had kids going to college. now they moved out. we may be moving back in. we want to move back. it is a very legal light well. that was probably the case. very legal. as far as putting the skylights anin, someone said there were inexpensive. maybe on a flat ceiling with sheet rock, but when you have a high, arched ceiling you have
7:46 pm
roof decks, 1 inch plywood air shaft, rain water raise, plus decking -- there is a lot to building a skylight there. why? they are building a room. there will be a lot of potential leaks. we do not want that. why should the burden be on us to build something when they are building already? all they need is a pencil and eraser. that is all they need. i could buy everything else. all of the accusations on character and whatever else you want to talk about -- the first meeting, we met with them at the office. we did get information from our doctor saying there was a meeting. we did not get invited. most owners did not get this. it is the tenants. but what about the homeowners?
7:47 pm
we should have been notified. when we did get that, it came out at 8.5 by 11. none of my neighbors could read it. i helped out several neighbors. until we went to see them, i did not know there was a design guide saying, "be considerate of your neighbors." we did not know. as soon as we went home and started reading everything, we found we did not have to accept this tunnel. as kevin showed you, we get direct sunlight. you see it by the pictures. that is not a camera. that is the son. i have several pictures of them. why commissioner -- why the commissioner said there could be
7:48 pm
a setback on the southern light, the answer was, "why take from one person, give it to the other one, and make that person mad?" john lund did not answer commisioner sugaya. they have a huge setback around their roof. vice president goh: i am interested to hear what you were going to say. 76 have a setback on what? >> their rooftop. vice president goh: the top floor? >> they have a huge setback. vice president goh: could you point that out? >> sure. this is kim's home. this is their neighbor. they have this huge setback. kim's home comes up like ours.
7:49 pm
ropas you can see, it lines up. this is exhibit be out of the lawyer's brief. i am going to show you exhibits m of the same brief. do you see the setback i am talking about, everyone? that is a real setback there. with angela's content and that she is helping out the neighbor by pushing her wall back, that whole northern wall of theirs is set back except for their portion. they even have a portion of the front of the building. we support the addition. we love new stuff. we support it. except do not take away our limited light. vice president goh: thank you.
7:50 pm
president peterson: you have three minutes. >> thank you, madam president. if i might have the overhead? thank you. i just want to point out what he was pointing out with regard to 706. that is a huge deck. a very different set of circumstances. our envelope difference is significant. it is not -- is apples and oranges, with respect to the kims' addition. the other is to show you the breadth of the neighborhood. the overhead shows the green lots are all people that signed a petition in support of this. there is broad support all over. again, they are the only ones who filed the dr for the appeal. the last point i want to make before i turn over to mr. lum is
7:51 pm
i have a cottage in the back of a four story house in the castro. i put skylights in my dining room. $2,000 for everything. it made a huge difference in my upper floor. personally, i think skylights are fabulous. you can buy shades. i actually put one in my bedroom. i do not get much light and it made a huge difference to the ventilation of the room. i would like to have mr. lum speak about the sun drawings so we can get more specific and scientific about what exists now. i want to add that when they talked about 706, that is a deck. that extends 15 feet beyond our house. our house, the third floor is on top of the existing house that
7:52 pm
we have. our setback does not even impact the deck a reference. that is beyond our house. it is 15 feet beyond our house. we are not building past that. the setback we have given is part of the skyline of the house, not of the deck their reference. i just want to clarify that. >> i just wanted to show you the sun study we did and how we determined that in the wintertime, which i will show you this diagram here, which is in your packet, there is no sign that directly comes into the rooms. it is true when one looks at the actual solstice, when the sun is the highest and when we have the most daylight during our day, you can clearly see that from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m., there is no direct sunlight at all. in the summer solstice, there is
7:53 pm
approximately two hours of sunlight coming in the early morning and two hours at the end of the day. that is similar to the photograph they have provided as the documentation. president peterson: thank you. is there any more department will comment? commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner fung: one of the things -- let me start with a point regarding the topic of light and how it is carried throughout our discussion this evening. as one of the public speaker said, i take the position that the ambient light would probably
7:54 pm
improve with a reflective wall since the reflective walt is north of that light. therefore, the reflections provide greater ambient light to the windows. part of that issue with the light i think is not necessarily the ambient light situation. there is a big difference between ambient light and awareness of the sky. and i think that is what they are losing. the ambient light, i think, is probably improved. but what the people have lost is any awareness of the sky. since you can see a sliver of it from the top of the windows -- that said, the question is also
7:55 pm
framed by the fact that the light well, the triangular light well is not conforming. but it is legal on that basis. the other thing that was not in the discussion is that these two bedrooms are also non-compliant. they probably would not be allowed under today's code, not only in terms of access in terms of fire but also in terms of light and air. so what has been brought up, and got to the crux of the situation for me, was the appellant's view
7:56 pm
that since everything is being generated by their neighbor their equity has been damaged. i do not quite see it that way. i think there is a factor that the proposed addition is more of an edition than a remodel, except for what you call the new facade on the front. it is relatively modest. i think that the entire issue of the people of that project is being driven around the triangle of light i am not prepared to put forth their appeal. commissioner garcia: i think she showed a map which indicated the neighborhood. i think the people who support it would agree -- it was stated
7:57 pm
their legal stand alone. it is reasonable they stand alone. they are the ones that are going to be affected by this project. it is good that the neighbors support it. it speaks well of the project sponsor that the neighbors support it. it probably speaks well of the project itself. it does not speak ill of the neighbors to try to get some sort of relief in here. also -- and i would resent the fact that your problem is going to be easily solved with skylights. what he described in terms of the roof would not make it inexpensive to put in a light well. but i agree with commissioner fung this is a modest project. it is almost a right. the project sponsor has reduced
7:58 pm
it to 60% of what it could possibly be. i think that the point that was made by commissioner fung having to do with the -- if the wall was painted white, the sun reflecting off of that will help with getting some sunlight or some light into those rooms. but while i certainly sympathize with the olivos, i feel this is a worthwhile project. i intend to uphold it. vice president goh: i think we know where this is going to land, but i want to say that something about a 100 to your
7:59 pm
old house with a strained triangular light well -- i would like to see that kind of thing protected in this city. i do not know what the answer is. i do not think the answer is a rectangular like well. i agree that probably will not help that much. it is kind of a quirky little thing. i think it deserves some attention. i do wish that the parties had come together and discuss things like potentially the skylights. maybe we would not have gotten here and it would not have been quite so contentious and cumbersome. it sounds like that time has passed and there is a little bit too much bad blood at this point for that. i do not think -- a kind of does not matter.