Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 1, 2014 11:30pm-12:01am PST

11:30 pm
prior to propc they are providing more for affordable housing. i would deny the appeal. that's what my feeling would be. >> i think for us to make a cogent decision, we need to look at what decisions are actually before us because the bull k exceptions were part of a conditional use process. that is not appealable here. however, there is sort of a gray area when you talk about the composition of the design, it's size, it's nature of rear yard, it's nature of exposure and other things. it's sort of all works together. i had that argument with the city attorney before about when we look at a permit, it does
11:31 pm
encompass many of the same characteristics that conditional use deals with. however, in this particular instance, i agree with the department that from the urban design point of view, i think probably it's something that needs to be codified at the department that a building should continue along the entire corner. the open space should be where it is continuous than a potential mid-block open space which means it's not going to be linear, it's not going to be along one side which would make it code compliant currently. i'm in agreement that it makes accepts -- sense from an urban design point of view and the way we
11:32 pm
want the city to be. the issues then are called variances, but these variances don't necessarily entail changes in the entitlement level where you would see for a variance for elimination of potential parking or increase in parking, variances on potential increases in setback or reduction of setback. these variances to be are related to the fact that if you buy the urban design concept as to how a corner to be. therefore i would not support the appeal. >> i don't have anything more to add to commissioner fung's articulate explanation. so i would not support the appeal. >> i would just doubt that i
11:33 pm
sounded interest in the public comment and opposition and the appellant testimony was more about alternative purchasers and developers of this site and really didn't address the issues of the variances and whether they the zoning administrator had abused it's discretion. i would go with my fellow commissioners. >> who is going to make the motion? >> i will move to deny the appeal based on the reasons stated in this zoning administrators brief. >> typically these types of appeals are looked on error abuse of discretion. >> there was no error on abuse of discretion. >> we have a motion by commissioner hurtado to deny this appeal and uphold the granting of the variances on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error
11:34 pm
or abuse his discretion and on the basis of the record in the brief. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, president is absent, lazarus aye, honda, aye. the vote is 4-0. the granting of this variance is upheld. >> i will call item 11. sf 11
11:35 pm
sulpicio marino. 530-day street protesting the issuance on october 16, 2013, to martin slatary. >> geepg, -- good evening. at this point i have nothing to add to statements in my brief and there is nothing also that i wish to emphasize on those statements although i stand firm with my statements. >> sir, in reading your brief, one of the things you brought up is that you want the sky light to be fixed and not
11:36 pm
retractable? what changes do you want made in your appeal? >> that there is no access at all to the retractable skylight would allow access to the roof for the roof deck. i initially was contesting the roof deck and if the retractable sky light is to be present that would be the only way for the access to get to the roof. >> okay, we can hear from mr. santos.
11:37 pm
>> good evening, mr. santos. construction started in may of 2013. we took substantial and vertical opposition and proper notice was made and no complaints or -- appeals filed and with the course of construction of this roof deck. we recognize in the planning code that you would trigger notification. but we felt we can achieve the desired the intent which is to create a retractable skylight and roof deck which will meet the requirements of a non-notifiable roof deck. that's what we proposed. we submitted it to the planning department and again all the proper permits and proper procedures were followed. our
11:38 pm
client urged me to contact the appellant which i did. i met him at the property. we like him would want him to be part of the neighborhood and my suggestion to him was that we would consider a couple of modifications, one we use glass railing, we potentially use the size of the deck. he felt adamant about the fact that he was going to be losing privacy. i stated to him that his view towards the east happens to rely on the windows and not only that but there is an actual lot between us. it's conceivable that in the future someone may choose to develop that lot. those issues are going to be a lot more
11:39 pm
complicated for him than this small roof deck. again, our desire was to make sure that this deck is small and compatible with the size of the house and at the same time we wanted to introduce a small system as possible to minimize any visual impact. i urge you to deny the appeal and ratify the proper planning permit in regards to the roof deck. thank you. >> mr. santos, a couple of questions, one is this the elevation at the exterior wallet -- wall at that point visible from the appellants house, it varies from configuration. i couldn't
11:40 pm
tell from the drawings why it did that? >> you are talking our western wall? right. there is a small portion that would create it where the retractable skylight is. so this is a small section of the railing. that's the only modification or irregularity in terms to the western wall. >> there is actually 2 pieces, isn't there on different sides of the building? >> i haven't been to the site
11:41 pm
lately but i can check on that. the intent was to minimize the over all height and make it as small and least intrusive with regard to our neighbors to the west. >> did you consider if you had reduced the size of that skylight so it's code compliant in terms of distance you wouldn't have to have the fire rate of per pit? >> we did not consider that. >> and then i have one question, mr. santos. is there a reason why the roof deck was not in the original design? >> it was an afterthought. i think potentially my client may have had conversations with the realtor and he may have been told that this will have a significant positive
11:42 pm
impact with regards to sale? >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the subject property at 530-day street. the appellant is located one property removed at 530-day street. this is a sloping lot so the property is higher than the permit holder property. also as the permit holder noted there was a 2011 building permit application for addition and to add a garage and that went through notification. and there were no discretionary review requestcious , the building
11:43 pm
permit was issued last may and after the issuance of the building permit, they decided to add the roof deck and access to that roof deck. based upon the plan, that is code compliant and would not require notice. it would be allowed without section 311 notice as well as the railing that is proposed. that said, there are a couple of discrepancies that i did notice in the plans which maybe something that can be addressed as through revision process. when comparing the roof plan and third floor plan, the location of the retractable skylights do not lineup. there is also a proposed stair from the deck at the rear of the building that goes on top of the retaining wall in the rear yard. that's shown, i think on the floorplans but not on the site plan. the fixed skylight that shows on the roof plan,
11:44 pm
i did not see those on the plan that would not allow for the notification. that is not to say that it wasn't added after that time and the additional notice is required. i think there are several changes here from what was originally noticed and may not be accurately represented. all the changes that are here would meet the planning code and not require new notice, but it maybe useful to have the discrepancies rectified and also to have any changes from the previously approved plans clearly noted. i think it's bubbling where many of the change are. that is my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you.
11:45 pm
> when planning staff reviews the document do they review the planning? >> no. >> let me rephrase this. the original -- 311 drawings these, my question was when your staff reviews the final permit do they compare the permits that was against the proposed 311 as to what the changes were? >> yes. typically what the process we would undergo, we would have a project that meets the guidelines and then send out a notice and if there are no discretionary reviews we would submit that for notice. as you know in the
11:46 pm
process, it may be reviewed and that plan went to notice before signing off but in this case we have a provision notice. sometimes the project sponsor will provide and they should provide the main permit that is being revised and we can compare it against that, but we rely on the permit holder to identify and cloud those changes and what's being changed. >> then the follow up question is based upon your knowledge, the permit set minus these changes conform to what was presented in notice sent? >> i believe the original permit issued on the 2011 permit complied with the notice that was sent out. that would be my understanding.
11:47 pm
>> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, on this permit application it's under appeal from the building code point of view and from a building department issuance position. it appears that it meets all the requirements of the building code. it was properly filed and reviewed by our department and isht on october 16, 2013. i have looked at the plans and i didn't see anything on there that was untoward. i did see the walls, i can see where the skylights are located, that would be a question for the designer. i think that's where you were getting a. if there wasn't a power pit, that
11:48 pm
would be for the neighbor. if there is a way to do that but i'm not sure that's the case because of the stairs and location of the building. i'm available for any questions. >> what was the code requirement for the fire rated para pit distance wise to glazing? >> i believe we can do it to 3 feet from property line. it's based on the percentage of the length of percentage of openings in the exterior walls. i think they can do this on 3 feet. i'm pretty confident. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we can take any rebuttal. mr. mariano if you have anything
11:49 pm
to add. you have 3 minutes. >> i moved into my home in 1989 and up to this time i have not filed any permit to do any work at my home. meaning that i don't know where ms. santos when he explained that my window is facing the east are on the property line. to my understanding, the windows in the front part of the house is at least 3 feet away from the property line. the property line is oblique, runs narrow as it goes to the rear of the house. that's the only thing i wanted to say. >> thank you. >> mr. santos, anything further? >> commissioners, thank you for the question, commissioner fung. typically when we go back to the building
11:50 pm
department to get a revised permit we will bring copies of the previously approved permits. when we sit down at the counter we are showing what was previously approved and what the proposed modifications would be. of course there is no such thing as a perfect document. so mine were not clouded. that included everything. the intent was to make the planner aware that we were modifying something that was previously approved. thank you. >> anything further from the department? no. okay. commissioners, unless you have questions, the matter is submitted. >> i guess you know the there
11:51 pm
is two issues here. one is that whether the revisions changed enough to have warranted some type of further review and therefore some discussion as to how those revisions could have been incorporated with a little less impact. that's one issue. the second issue which is different from that is really whether those revisions if they had been in the original packet would have warranted any changes and therefore modification. i don't think that those changes would have
11:52 pm
warranted any further changes or impact from the departments. the problem for the appellant really is when the intervening lot gets filled in which is going to create further issues for him. this home won't even buy visible -- be vipt -- visible at that point in time and that is not before us yet. so i'm weighing those things and satisfied with the question that due process occurred in terms of the comparison with what was the 311 notice set and the scope of what was in the permit set. and as the appellant had indicated previously and in his brief, he did not object
11:53 pm
totally to that although of was obviously a change from what he had been used to. at this point, i think my position would be that these changes probably would not have warranted any further revision if they had been an original set. >> i agree. can i make a motion. i make a motion to deny the appeal on the fact that the department did not error in their discretion. >> it's a notable standard. if you think it's code compliant. >> yes, i do think it's code compliant but i think we should have some kind of language in there that the permit holder worked with the department to clean up some
11:54 pm
of the languages with regard to the work that was performed that may or may not be on the permit. is that what you said earlier? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. perhaps directing the project sponsor -- what is your recommendation? >> the discrepancies on the plan are not material to our review, but i think would be more jermaine to building department review and if the building department is satisfied with the revisions and discrepancy of the location of the skylight and the roof plan and floor plan. i think that would be relevant to the location of the para pit. it would be in a different location if it wasn't matched up and lined up with the stairs. i think in terms of the things that were
11:55 pm
shown on floorplans and not on site plans. the work there is okay, but the quality of the plans are -- para pet. >> the construction is already there. those para pet walls are up already. >> it would be a good idea to get an accurate set of plans. i can see what mr. sanchez is saying and that's correct. if the skylights would be shifted to the left, we would need to get an accurate as built of the plan. if you want to put some language there i'm not objected to that. we can show the skylight that are different from this one so we can get it all fixed with one revision for the language it
11:56 pm
would we all good. >> did you get that, mr. pacheco? >> i think if the board is going to uphold this permit, i think this board needs to decide whether it's going to uphold this permit and let dbi do what it needs to do. >> i think if we create this would be another appeal. >> why don't we uphold the permit on the basis that it's code compliant. >> i can add if the inspector finds a discrepancy with these plans with the as built condition then we would have a provision to correct it. >> okay. that works. >> on that motion to uphold this permit on the basis that
11:57 pm
it's code compliant. commissioner fung, aye, the president is absent, commissioner hurtado? aye, lazarus? aye. the vote is 4-0. this permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. >> the next item is a closed session item 12 and the first item is public comment on all matters related to this session. is there anyone here who would like to speak on item 12? seeing none, then we have a vote to move into closed session? >> i move to close into closed session. >> there is a motion to move into closed session. mr. pacheco, please call the roll. >> on that motion from commissioner hurtado to enter
11:58 pm
into closed session item 12, commissioner fung, president is absent, lazarus, honda. the vote is 4-0. the board is now in clos we are reconvening in open session and i will state that no action was taken during the closing session and the matter is whether or not to disclose information in the session. >> i will move that we not disclose the discussion based
11:59 pm
on attorney-client privilege. >> mr. pacheco, if you can take the roll on that? >> on that motion from commissioner hurtado to not disclose the content of the closed session, commissioner fung, lazarus, honda, aye. the vote is 4-0 to not disclose the content of the closed session. >> there is no further business. we are adjourned. thank you. >> >> [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> >>
12:00 am
>> the meeting will come to order. this is the regular meeting of the government and over sight meeting. i'm supervisor breed and to my right is -- to my left is supervisor david chiu and cohen. the committee clerk is major and i like to thank sfgt for staffing the meeting. >> silence all cell phones and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on