tv [untitled] January 22, 2014 3:30am-4:01am PST
>> good evening, welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. our is fong, and hurtado. to my left is deputy city attorney robert brian. he will give any legal advice tonight. pacheco is the legal assistant. i'm the executive board director, we are welcome from matters of the board. scott sanchez is here. building inspector representing the department of inspection.
murray is here with the san francisco municipal transportation agency and john kwaung is here manager of public works. at this time mr. pacheco if you would go over the meeting guidelines and go over the process. >> please turn off our cell phones. appellants, permit holders and department representative each have 7 minutes to present their cases. people speaking must include their comments in 3 minutes. people affiliated have up to 3 minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate presentation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card of the board staff when you come to
the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, schedules, please speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1550 mission room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television. sf gov. tv. san francisco television. channel 78. thank you for your attention. at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearing and wish to give evidenceary weight, please stand and say i do after you have been sworn or affirmed.
please note that any member may speak pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give to the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> anyone who would like to speak on general comment, this is the item under which you may do so. seeing no general public comment, we'll move to item two commissioners, comments and questions. commissioners? seeing none, item three, consideration of the boards minutes for the meeting of january 8, 2014. >> any changes or comments? i move to adopt the minutes of january 8, 2014. >> thank you. any public comment on the minutes? seeing
none, mr. pacheco, please call the roll. >> on the motion to adopt the january 8, 2014, minutes on that motion commissioner fung, ay! aye, hurtado, lazarus, honored -- honda. those minutes are adopted. >> thank you, item 4. rehearing request. item 4: subject property at 1532 cole street. letter from david polatnick, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-140, polatnick vs. dbi, pda, decided december 18, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on the basis that the planning department's determination on height is accurate, and on a further basis that the structure is code compliant. permit holders: andrea higgins & peter chung. project: addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio at natural grade; demo exterior rear wall; bpa no. 2013/04/26/5579s >> thank you, item 4. rehearing request. item 4: subject property at 1532 cole street. letter from david polatnick, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-140, polatnick vs. dbi, pda, decided december 18, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on the basis that the planning department's determination on height is accurate, and on a further basis that the structure is code compliant. permit holders: andrea higgins & peter chung. project: addition of new office space in rear yard
below associated patio at natural grade; demo exterior rear wall; bpa no. 2013/04/26/5579s >> thank you, item 4. rehearing request. item 4: subject property at 1532 cole street. letter from david polatnick, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-140, polatnick vs. dbi, pda, decided december 18, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on the basis that the planning department's determination on height is accurate, and on a further basis that the structure is code compliant. permit holders: andrea higgins & peter chung. project: addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio at natural grade; demo exterior rear wall; bpa no. 2013/04/26/5579s at that time the board 1234 the board held 5-0. and that the structure is co-compliant. the project is an addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio at natural grade. we'll hear from the requester or the agent first who has three minutes.3 minutes. >> my name is jace eleven son. thank you for letting us be here tonight. before outlining this process i would like to talk about the 311 public notification process, the primary component for planning approval for residential projects in san francisco and has done so for more than a generation. if a neighbor plans to do an addition there will be a public notice and time for review and input. when there is a 600 square foot addition without public notice that is troubling and very unique. it's really counter to the intention
of the planning code which encourages both harmony and cooperation. now planning code section, does allow for exceptions to both the rear yard requirement and to the public notice. for underground garages. the issue is is that they are not building an underground garage but for a habitable space. when we try to make sense of this, you have garage on one side and whether the definitions of how do you come to those kinds of judgments, they are posted online and transparent and available interpretations and we looked up and it turns out they are absolutely no written interpretations that equate garage with living space. that doesn't happen. it's not in the interpretation. it's not in the planning code. and planner or elisa or listensey, there is no
written interpretation. the only thin that was given to us was this illustrated book of development definition and under that garage is clearly a service space for the storage of vehicles. the other point i want to make is about the 5-foot setback. there is great precedent for side yard set backs isn mechanisms for negotiations. these are typical situations for board permit appeals hearings. the setback is reasonable because it's absolutely achievable. it can be done and should be done and if there is no loss of function, if there is no loss of code compliance, if there is no loss of square footage and no loss of value, it should be done because it's a better project. thank you for your consideration. and we should have a hearing to discuss it. i want to say this. understanding both your powers and your
judgment and recognizing that the fate of this project and the future definitions of 136c 26 lie not with some planner, but with you tonight here and now. we respectfully request a rehearing. thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now? hi. good evening. i'm representing architecture. the project that you are reviewing is in fact a very unique project. when we started the project because of it's uniqueness, it's underground.
we were trying to figure out if what we are doing was feasible . due to its uniqueness we started with the project to check that it's meeting the required codes and set backs. the project was approved as you do know. and we are proposing a fully compliant project. so i just wanted to reiterate that. ying include a couple of drawings in the packet that you have that demonstrate this. the height of the structure and including the topography for illustrating that we are fully compliant. thank you. >> i have a question. go ahead? >> just to remind you commissioners, last time we had discussion about what our client could have done. by right without any variances he could have done a 2 story
horizontal edition. no variances. just straight planning code. he chose not to do that. because he felt that i was going to be a lot more detrimental to the neighbor. so he selected a very expensive option. it's a subtraenl option. he's going to have to do water proofing, pumps for draining. he did everything he could so it would not fact his neighbor. once again no good deed ever goes unpunished. this is going to cost a groo great deal of money. it will not affect the neighbor. it has absolutely no significance to the neighbor. it will affect them absolutely no element of condition or visual or any other system. so please, deny the request for a rehearing.
>> question for you. can you illustrate for us how you relied on this interpretation. there is an argument by the appellant by the definition at section 16 by the planning department is i assume they are arguing it would be unjust to don't interpret the sections this way. can you explain to us how you as a permit holder can rely on this stipulation on what planning told you? >> regarding it can be an office or habitable space? >> right. >> i will have the architecture speak. >> so in addressing that, when we did our preliminary review with david lindsey it was brought to our attention that there are unwritten uses that
the planning department, i think scott might be able to speak to this a little better. there are uses that they have allowed in the past that don't necessarily that are not limited strictly to garages, that they have adopted and approved. so there is a precedent for it. that's where it was brought to our attention when we did this preliminary review with the planning department that this is an acceptable use under this particular code section. >> did you rely on that when you draw up the plans? >> yes. that's the whole presup for us moving on the project. >> one question. your drawing shows that elevation 445-4. the
appellants drawing shows that at 445-11. what was in your original drawing? was this the change? >> the elevation height of the fun. the -- finished. the top of the structure has not changed. i'm not sure which one he's referencing. if it's the dirt, the soil, the structure does have about 10-12 inches of soil on top of it. it's a green roof. the top of the structure, the top of the concrete roof structure is what we are applying the 3-foot dimension. >> i'm talking about a drawing that they have that supposedly was prepared by you folks and it's dated october 4, 2013. it shows the top of that at 445-11.
>> i didn't bring that drawing with me. the one at our site permit. all i can tell you the drawing we have in our brief is the current unchanged. no heights have been changed or modified. it is a clarified drawing. for that purpose of measuring the height in here. >> so the section that you have provided as part of your response you are saying is the same section as in your site permit? >> that is correct. yes. >> okay.
>> thank you. okay, we can hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is a rehearing request. this item was properly before the board on december 18th the board upheld the building application and a standard of review whether or not there is new information that couldn't of been presented at the time of hearing. it seems the appellant is in fact rearguing the case here. all the material, all the arguments were available to them prior to the previous hearing. in regards to the question related to reliance, certainly they had approached the department in march with proposal. we reviewed that. determined that it was something that is code
compliant. submitted an application and reviewed and an appealed to this board. regarding to this stipulation which is under planning code section 311 it's exempt from neighborhood notification. it's a longstanding interpretation that predates me as zoning administrator. it's more than three 1/2 years old if not older that would allow other uses in what is section c 26 closed garages that has landscaping open areas in the required rear yard. other uses that have been allowed one was a basketball cart and there have been media rooms and office in this case. so it is something that we have approved in the past. there is no requirement for a setback. even under section 136c 25 you can have that extending 12 feet into required rear yard at one
level and there is no required setback there on the code. in regards to commissioner fungs question the information provided by the project sponsor and last week clarified some of the points that were raised by the appellant in the rehearing request in terms of the grades shows the project. it's more information than what is on the approved plans and we would request that this be added as an addendum to the information. we reviewed all the materials and it is code compliant. i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> i have a quick question. can you address the appellants argument regarding the height? >> yes. we did review the material and reviewing the submittal for mar, the building permit application banged in
november and december we did request additional information from the sponsor and they were able to demonstrate from surveys that this would in fact be less than 3 feet in height above the existing grade. with all that information i think it's properly shown in the permit holder from last week that given the lateral slope of the lot, what they have essentially get a clear story for the offices to be within 3 feet. >> is that an average of what we are talking about because of the slope in >> they are correcting it along the slope and it's going to be no more than 3 feet above the average. >> this you for clarifying that. >> my same question on that dimension. what does it show the elevation for the edge of the roof. you have the site permit? >> yes i do. so on the site permit on the section on the
site plan they called out the new planned roof elevation 4461 and including the landscaping. that's shown also on the second level floor plan. that's the top of the vege taetd roof landscaping would be exempt under the code as well. we wouldn't count that towards 3 feet. and on the section to the top of retaining wall 44511. the delta there is the landscaping.
>> now, it was somehow given today for this hearing has a different number. >> the top of roofing 445 and that is, so the question is the discrepancy between 4454 the material submitted last week and the 44511 on the section from the site plan? >> yeah. because they have indicated that the grade at the mid-point of the lot is at 4424. >> i think maybe the architect may want to address the correct location. >> you indicated the site
permit had this -- elevation. >> i think again that the permit architect should address this question and the discrepancy on the plans. >> thank you. >> would you like to have the architect come back to the microphone? >> yes. i will raise the same question. >> that number is i assume to the facia, there is a number holding up the landscaping. that is no longer there. all i can say is the top of the structure has indicated in our brief will be code compliant, the top of the roof structure will be no greater than 3 feet as measured above the average grade. that's what our addendum
is clarifying. >> so you dropped it 7 inches? >> no. that landscaping assembly we have to address. we have to change. what we are talking about the top of the roof structure now. >> well then you have me confused because your dimensions point to the same thing on both drawings. >> i'm just going off the revised section drawing that we've given you that's measuring the top of the concrete structure of the roof. that piece was just a trim piece on the edge of the built
up -- landscape roof on top of the concrete structure. >> okay. so your original drawing showed it to the top of the fasha and now to the top of the roof? >> yes. that's correct. >> okay. thank you. mr. duffy, anything? no. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, the rehearing request is submitted. >> any comments, commissioners? >> i almost thought it was, i'm still not 100 percent sure because it's a little bit slight of hand changing the dimensions by saying you are changing the detail. >> i see no reason. i think
that the point that santos, the engineer that the permit holder had the ability to do a pop out without a side yard setback. this is definitely less intrusive than what they could have gotten over the counter. so i don't see a reason i think that we should uphold the permit and deny the appeal. >> i think there was not sufficient new evidence to do a rehearing. we've already heard these arguments. for that reason i would move to deny the rehearing request. >> okay. mr. pacheco if you can call the roll please. >> on that motion from the president to deny this
rehearing request, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, aye, lazarus, aye, honda, aye. the vote is 5-0. this hearing request is denied and the order shall be released. >> before i call the next item, i'm going to ask the people standing to take a seat. we have to keep that area clear because of fire codes. you cannot stand on that doorway. we'll hear next items 5abcd. item 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d:the marsh, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1050 valencia street. protesting the issuance on july 17, 2013, to m. rutherford trust / shizuo holdings, demolition permit demolish one-story restaurant building with 2,000sf of ground floor areaa. application no. 2010/12/27/7436. public hearing held dec. 11, 2013. for further consideration today and for the adoption of tentative findings and conditions. 5bb appeal no. 13-096 the marsh, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1050-1058 valencia street. protesting the issuance on july 17, 2013, to m. rutherford trust / shizuo holdings, permit to erect a building erect a five-story, 12-unit apartment/retail/parking building with 3000sf of ground floor areaa application no. 2010/12/27/7437"s". public hearing held dec. 11,
2013. for further consideration today and for the adoption of tentative findings and conditions. 5cc appeal no. 13-097 alicia gamez, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1050 valencia street. protesting the issuance on july 17, 2013, to m. rutherford trust / shizuo holdings, demolition permit demolish one-story restaurant building with 2,000sf of ground floor areaa. application no. 2010/12/27/7436. public hearing held dec. 11, 2013. for further consideration today and for the adoption of tentative findings and conditions. regular meeting, board of appeals, january 15, 2014 - page 3 5dd appeal no. 13-098 alicia gamez, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1050-1058 valencia street. protesting the issuance on july 17, 2013, to m. rutherford trust / shizuo holdings, permit to erect a building erect a five-story, 12-unit apartment/retail/parking building with 3000sf of ground floor areaa application no. 2010/12/27/7437"s". public hearing held dec. 11, 2013. for further consideration today and for the adoption of tentativesf 512341234 two of the appeals filed by the marsh all against the planning department of approval. four are dealing with the property at 1050 valencia street and two on july 13, 2013, a trust to do a demolition to demolish one restaurant with square feet of ground floor area. two are protesting the issuance on july 17, 2013, to emma trust to e erect a building with 3,000 square feet of ground floor area. these matters are on for further consideration today and adoption of tentative findings and conditions. we'll start with the marsh who have 3 minutes to address the board. >> madam clerk, before we start, i have a question as to commissioners. i think i want confirmation. this is not brought in the context of a rehearing request because we have not adopted the findings. once those would be found and whatever we found is finalized, at that point the clock runs
for a rehearing request. >> that's right. no final decision is made by the board and then when that is done a rehearing begins. >> so we are hearing input on the findings? >> the board rules allows the parties on the potential findings that have been repaired. >> thank you for the clarification. >> yes, it has been calendared for further consideration as well as the consideration for the findings. the matters are still freshly before the board. >> understood. thank you. >> commissioners good evening, for the record, gallagher for the marsh. before i address the findings and conditions i want to address the point mr. williams stated at the last hearing. he was required, notten encouraged, required to
appoint in writing a community liaison office prior to issuance of the permit before the issuance of the permit. so before. appointing himself after permit issuance is insufficient for the developer to remedy this violation. the whole point on that condition to encourage neighbors within the mark which he also didn't do was to begin before permit issuance. no one contradicted mr. williams testimony. no one. the violation of this condition is sufficient grounds for you to deny the project in its entirety. if we think it's okay to give a wink and a nod developers who ignore planning commission requirements especially ones who speak to neighborhood concerns, then efr developer is going to ignore these requirements. having said this, the -- marsh nonetheless
-- condition k requires to stop construction at 4:00 p.m. monday through friday. mr. rut acres stated to miss brian that he believes the marsh is not active. this is probably why he addressed the merchants association over the holidays and asked them to write a letter in support of the 6:00 p.m. stop of the construction work. by e-mail of january 1st, wrote to miss wise man and said we have written the developer and let him know that we could not support his request. even the exterior hours. that's a 50-hour workweek. university employees are going to be
working longer than that. i forgot, the developer hasn't made a former commitment to hire union labor. in any case he's entitle to a 9-hour workday and 50-hour workweek. there is heavy bike traffic on valencia street. it requires buyers and renters to sign an affidavit and made aware of a theatre next door. we believe we have addressed the validity of this condition in our three page brief. we ask for the phrase to be inserted in the phrase. thank you very much for your time. >> can you repeat that last suggested modification? >> yes. quote, prior to the purchase -- >> what letter? >> condition h. >> okay.