tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 29, 2019 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
permit holders endosperm and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. they have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing request, each party will get three minutes and no rebuttal time. to assess the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff and you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting every hearing, the board rules or schedules, speak to staff after the break or call or visit the board office. we are located at city hall. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , cable channel 78 and will be wrote -- rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. the video is available on our website and be downgraded --
downloaded from san francisco government t.v. online. we will swear in and affirm all those who intend to stuff -- testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you you happens working or affirmed. for those who will testify, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you. okay, we will now move onto item number 1 which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction that is not on the calendar. is anyone here for general public comment? okay, we will move onto item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. okay, moving onto item number 3, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the march 6th, 2019 board meeting.
>> any corrections or additions? motion to accept? >> moved to accept as submitted. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes as submitted. on that motion... [roll call] >> okay. the minutes are adopted. we will now move onto item number 4, this is appeal number 19-008. the subject property is 1058- 1058 a mississippi street. the issuance ungenerous 16th, 2019 of a seismic permit to erect three-story no basement -type two family dwellings. this is application number 201512316217. on march 6, 2019, the board voted four-0-1.
they wanted to allow time for the parties to reach an agreement on the easement issue. we will hear from the appellant first, and you will have three minutes and then we will hear from the permit holder and the department his. >> hello, okay. good evening, commissioners. i am speaking on behalf of my mother, resident and owner of 1060 mississippi street for the past 38 years. we have 115-year-old we are called to choose only access to the street is a concrete pathway across the 1058 mississippi street lot. we have a prescriptive easement and have filed a lawsuit to perfect and record that easement at the last hearing, we applied for an indefinite continuance pending the resolution of our lawsuit. as julie rosenberg informed us, this or it's common practice is to await the conclusion of litigation usually before making judgements, but the developer
claims that we had been granted four continuances already. in actuality, there had been granted three. the third only because the developer did not show up, and in fact only two continuances were granted on the merits of our appeal. his comments made it appear as a we had been abusing the system. the board took his claim at face value and declined to await the civil lawsuit as would have been customary. the second irregularity was that the d.b.i. representative, mr. duffy, was unprepared to speak to you. when i returned to my seat, he complained i had not included the relevant codes and the appeals package. i pointed them out to him and he tried to review them as best as he could before he came up and spoke to you. in his presentation, he was unclear and at least one commissioner concluded he was saying that enclosing the egress would be illegal. we learned today that d.b.i. approved the enclosure as a primary egress. we don't know what rationale was used. this decision was made yesterday if mr. duffy says that building
codes sanctions the enclosure, then we have no quarrel here, if we understand that a discretionary decision was made to allow this developer's project to enjoy the entitlements of a grandfathering policy for a pre-existing building, then our straightforward lawsuit will suddenly become long and protracted, benefiting no one. the court will have to revisit why this special exception was made for the developer, and scrutinize the basis of this board's decision too. why did they insist on hearing the appeal despite the open lawsuit? because a developer made a false and prejudicial claim to you. why did they signal to d.b.i. they would like to see the design sanctioned if possible? because the d.b.i. representative implied the egress would be legal, we think commissioner swig was correct all along when he initially said he felt reluctant to wade into an unresolved legal disputes. they approval tonight would create a jurisdictional conflict , requiring the court to revisit all the circumstances. we would like the board to rectify its course to tunnel
d.b.i.'s special exemption for the developer if that's what it is, or to apply the continuance that would have been customary in a situation as this. i would like to finish by saying that they both raised -- we both raised our hands on swear to tell the truth. would set a good precedent for this board to hold speakers accountable for their remarks. thank you. >> thank you. for the record, i did indicate there had been cases where an appeal has been put on hold pending a lawsuit. i did not necessarily say it was common practice, so i just want to clarify that for the record. >> yes, okay, yeah. >> thank you. >> i have a question, i'm sorry. >> yes. >> as it states in my briefing here in the packet i have, we continued this to allow time for parties to reach an agreement on the easement issue, and it seems you are raising other issues. have you met with other parties including the building department and the developer regarding resolving the issue?
>> commissioner tanner, the decision to enclose -- with all respect to enclose or to have the easement according to code open to the sky is the central issue. they did not meet with d.b.i. until yesterday, and we cannot proceed in some kind of settlement or negotiation without d.b.i.'s decision on that matter, so all of this time has been spent twiddling our thumbs, i guess, and this meeting happened behind our back we were not present at the d.b.i. meeting. that would be my answer as to why nothing has happened since then. >> okay. , thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, commissioners and members of the commission. thank you so much for hearing our case again. i am the partner of the builders
so since the last hearing, we contacted mr. duffy and mr. mark walz, who is a senior planner in d.b.i. right away. there was no reason for us to meet them. this is pretty straightforward. they had questions in regards to the easement, which they got taken to the co you who is in charge of recording easements and the divisions and all that in the department of building inspections. he wrote an e-mail back to mr. duffy and the department saying that this is a clear-cut approval. no approval was planted without a mistake, and in addition, that if the easement was to be
granted by us, that they could have access to our building. in addition, we have done, over the last 40 years, our company has been doing plans. we have done many of these buildings in the back, exiting through the front building. it happens all the time in san francisco. if i may have the overhead. this is the easement that we have been talking about all day long. we have offered this to our neighbors from the beginning, that offer is still standing. the easement agreement was sent just before the hearing here. the term sheet got sent to us on friday afternoon with dozens of items, over 25 items that we cannot meet different demands
that they are asking us to do, which evaluates our building, and it undermines the value tee -- the value of the project. at this point, i have no idea how to proceed. we did what we could. again, we went and talked to mrt was such a clear-cut case that no meeting was needed. i'm available for any comments you may have. >> the e-mail that you referenced, was that provided -- do you have a copy of that, who was that two, and who was privy to that communication? >> do we have a copy? yeah, it was sent to mr. duffy and mark walls. >> i have to ask this question, i don't want to ask this question, but you made the statement. you said that we've done this many, many times where we've had back buildings, and we've created easements.
for the record, can you provide -- i don't know it will change my opinion, but you made the statement, you will get challenged on it anyway, so it might as well be me asking the question. could you give me examples of those situations, specifically by address, where you have had a situation, similar situation where you created in easement so i back buildings could get to the front of a building. >> absolutely. right now we have a project at 415,424th street. an existing building in the front. we added a unit in the back through a variance, a rear yard to variance. a new single-family in the back, just like what we have here. decide permit, i think it is ready to be issued or issued already. it has been approved by the building department on the fire department and various other projects. the one in castro was exactly the same thing. three units in the front, back building, single-family in the front.
i can go on and on, i just do not have the papers in front to name the rest of it. >> i would be prepared with that list if i were you, because i know you'll get challenged on it somewhere along the line. another question, again, i don't think the burden is upon you. i think the burden is upon the appellant, but i was still ask the question. did you make any attempt, knowing we out of your couple of weeks ago with a mandate, or a requirement, or whatever we did for you two guys to get together and have a conversation? when you did not hear from the appellant, i would have been on the phone the next day if i was the appellant, but i'm not the appellant, and i'm not prescribing behavior, but did you make any attempt to pick up the phone and say, you know, time is ticking, and we are going to have another hearing. did you pick up the phone or try to reach the appellant to resolve something while you were
going through a parallel process of talking with mr. duffy? >> right, i mean, commissioners, we have been sued. we have an attorney -- we met with them a couple of weeks before the previous hearing that we had, and there was a number of demands that was voiced. it took them until last friday to put those down and send them to us. our attorney reached out to their attorney to see what is the process, and he was told that there was negotiations back and forth between the attorney and his client. that's all we have. >> so your assumption, given that this is going to go into a civil -- part of a civil lawsuit , this is out of our jurisdiction, so cast your fates to the wind. >> this has been going on since 2015. >> i understand. >> they had ample chance to take the sport the jah the previous
owner or whatever, but again, i am sorry to say, and i do have a lot of respect for my neighbors. i believe that i will do everything i can to resolve this with them. however, it seems like they continue delaying the project and delaying the project, and this is not going -- it just has to get resolved in court. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now here from joe duffy, d.b.i. >> good evening, commissioners. after the last hearing, i did actually correspond with the engineer and architect. i didn't know i was supposed to speak to the appellants about it , however, they did contact me by phone and e-mail as well, so whenever i stand up here and represent my department, it is either code compliant or it is not. the plans, the easement, the
corridor, hallway, whatever you want to call it, was shown on the drawings, and i did go back to d.b.i. to check that everything was okay with it. yesterday -- just there was a couple of e-mails with mark walls he was a senior plan checker. i ended up going to the supervisor at plan review division, and he sent me an e-mail today, and i forwarded it to the appellant. i didn't actually share it with the architect yet, but it was joe. i was able to review the permitted drawings associated with it. the proposed project does meet the equivalency requirement of the department of building inspection. it does conform with the building code and the b.c. -- and the standards. access to the right-of-way can be achieved via the reentry of the building building through a passageway for exit discharge and an emergency escape and rescue granted.
the route through the passageway is a -- is equipped with sprinkler coverage. so that is what i got from him, which is on the drawings. that was before you at the last hearing. i just wanted to go back and double check that. there was correspondence going back earlier in the process with david to is a plan checker engineer, and i think that that got resolved even with mr. wallace at that time, but now we have gone to a supervisor and had him review it. i'm happy enough to state here that it is code compliant, and there is information sheets on our website, and it is part of the department, but i do think that this case is, and i think the city attorney touched on it that -- at the previous hearing. the issue is more civil now at
this point, but as far as d.b.i. is concerned, there is an easement. if it turns out to be granted, it is acceptable the way it is drawn on those plans, so i think that -- i am available for questions. >> i will ask a follow-up question. i will ask questions to the project sponsor, but i want to ask a preamp to requestion. what is not noted on the plans is the path of access that would come from the next-door neighbor to the path that would go to the now approved passageway. how does that happen? forget the civil suit, that is another discussion, but how does that happen? you can build an accessible
walkway, and it's code compliant , we know that now, but what about the ten, 20, 30 feet, i don't know how long it is. that access which cuts through a fencing line, down a path, into the now approved passageway. >> that will need to be done under the easement agreements that they will do, which is ahead of them, but i think we've seen from his comments that if and when that happens, and i think there is -- the developer was reading in the brief earlier that there are e-mails that he is going to give them that easement, but i'm not sure, you know, that his comment seems to state that when that is granted and d.b.i. does review it along with the city attorney's office as well, it will be a recorded easement that it is acceptable, and that then would be shown that the gate, or whatever you want to call it would be shown
at that time. >> and also, i will ask this of -- for confirmation purposes that the project sponsor is still agreeing to this as they did a few weeks ago, that there would be an adequate and reasonable access point for the people occupying the rear cottage during the construction period to exit through his neighboring property. is that also -- without also be covered as part of the easement agreement? >> i have never done an easement agreement, maybe the city attorney could mentioned that one, but i assume it will be. it will have to be stated with easement is going to be, in a legal form, and then it has to be recorded, and the city are now involved in the easement agreements as well. going forward i believe that is a new practice. i have seen it instances in san francisco where in the rear
cottage, they're out of luck. sometimes, you know. >> you are perceiving this as a nice thing? >> i think so, from what i've seen, people have called me before and said, i am losing my access, and there is nothing i can do about that, but i think there is. they will need to work together here. obviously we all know that and we would like to see that, but i think from the d.b.i. point of view on the plans, that will work as an exit passageway, as part of an easement agreement. >> thank you for your clarity on the subject. >> sure. >> thank you. nothing from the planning department? is there any public comment on this item? okay. please come forward. >> hello, nice to see everybody again.
so i was just informed that the permit holder helped make some claims that there is an enclosed easement. i also just want to note that the enclosed easement can only -- egress can only be enclosed through pre-existing buildings only, that should be noted. further to that, i was here three weeks ago. basically, we had a case where our representatives had come forward and said that this was their fourth continuance, it is simply not true. that is a lie, so i think that when we speak about ethics, and when we talk about lies, especially when we are under oath in front of this group of lovely people, i think that ethics should really come into question and we should really understand, specifically, the ethics in our neighborhood, since i have been here, since i have -- i have been trying to
build in the neighborhood. i have a letter that i submitted signed by the members of the potrero hill 25th street corridor that i submitted to this board last time. i'm hoping that that's available for review and i can share it with you guys if possible, if i may. you will notice that we have several signatures from members of the community stating the exact history in our neighborhood, specifically one case of our neighbors who purchased a property that was not built up to code. they spent hours, thousands of hours and money trying to negotiate to get things done right. now we have a situation where we are talking about maximum easements. this whole situation just seems to be, in all honesty, kind of inept.
we are talking about circumstances in which they have ultimately proposed that they will observe this easement, and then doubled back to get the hold on development on this property listed, and ultimately said, no, we will not observe your easement, and that is why we are here and that is why max and elaine are in court right now. so to follow this up on the notion of ethics, we are all just talking about and 999 texas project that they are planning to propose and build under the benevolent guides of home s.f. i think that theory are skirting , they are basically -- i think that they are skirting, they are trying to get extra stories for the amount of affordable housing they are providing, and i hope that in a city that has an affordable housing crisis as our own, that we do not play party to this. thank you. >> thank you.
okay, is there any other public comment? saying none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> would you like to start? >> sure. i try to finish it last time. can i ask the project sponsor a question? last time we met, you indicated that you were, as part of creating this passageway through your development, that, and i called it to your attention, you got a two-year construction period, you know, realistically, that those folks were living in that back building and they can't wait around two years to get out of their building, and you would -- you offered that you would allow a path of exit through your property, and now that you owned the texas street
property, now through that to the street. is that still -- is that still something that you are willing to do, and that we could put into some sort of finalization? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay. , thanks very much. >> my comment on this is the project sponsor has, at all times, had a project which he originally proposed that was okay to build, and the project sponsor recognized that the neighbor that he was shutting off from access from a back building, and even though he could have billed to the building without a passageway, he has offered and written in his plans passageway.
we spoke of that last week that, you know, we could move on here and he could build the building without the passageway and it doesn't have to worry about getting the rights to a potential easement, but he was kind enough to recognize that, i think, and put that into his plan, and work together with d.b.i. and mr. tough -- and mr. duffy told us, indeed, there is an opportunity for an easement, and a passageway, in the building is still code compliant, so that seems to end. we also offer the opportunity to the appellants to have a conversation. again, if it would have been me, i would have been on the phone not the next day. but it is not me, and the behavior is up to the individual , but the appellant chose clearly not to engage, and work on these things, so i am kind of of the mind to move forward and uphold the appeal
. . . . here we're dealing with the appeal and i am not sure if that condition was placed on this permit, how any department of the city would enforce it. also not really connected to the actual construction of the building permit itself. it probably would be something that the parties could reach a resolution to in their lawsuit with that pending. >> commissioner honda: so your advice, counselor, is, is alterations made to the intent of a building with an easement and we can't use that as a condition, right? condition for anything else. so we just move forward and, in fact, deny the appeal and
approve the property as the plans have been submitted and approve plans as it is code compliant, right? >> if the board wants to, if it is satisfied with the plans that are proposed in connection with with this permit, it is up to the parties to reach a resolution on the easement, whether an easement exists, whether they want to record that on this property. and any other related issues that would be potentially settled in connection with that lawsuit, like access during construction. >> vice president swig: so the opportunity, i want this on the record, and we gave the parties the opportunity to have that discussion about the easement, about the access and all that stuff over the last three weeks. the appellant was not proactive in trying to have that conversation, so that is a missed opportunity in this case
for the appellant. in the spirit of trying to continue access through some potential easement, the developer has done the best he can, and we appreciate that, and also, the building is code compliant, right, with the proposed passageway which might be an easement. so basically if we want to, we deny the appeal and approve the project that is as it is code compliant. >> we have heard that it is code compliant. the party to resolve the easement. >> that would be my motion. the intent of my motion. >> commissioner honda: i would bring up an additional point. i thought that the board was quite clear at the conclusion of the last hearing that here was an opportunity for them to try to negotiate.
>> vice president swig: i agree. >> commissioner honda: that based upon our viewpoint, the permit looked to be appropriate to tissue. what was brought forth by the appellant twisted those words in his presentation, and i'm not quite appreciative of that. the fact is that this board and i have been on here 10 years now has not delayed action on an appeal to wait for litigation to proceed. >> vice president swig: i think you made that clear last week. >> okay. so we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion, president fung. >> an aye. >> u a commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> a commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> so that motion carries and
2019, meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on item number five. this is a rehearing request for the subject property at 663 21st avenue. anna mar t appellant s requesting a rehearing of 19-005, mar versus department of building inspection with planning department approval decided on february 20, 2019. at that time, the board voted 4-0-1, commissioner honda absent, to deny the appeal and uphold the site permit on the basis that it was properly issued. the permit description is a two-story rear addition with deck at a second story as a back porch, adding bathroom and bedroom with living space. this is application 2017/11/22/4682. as a preliminary matter, commissioner honda -- >> i did watch the video and am prepared to hear this case. >> wonderful. we will hear from the requester first. ms. mar.
you have three minutes, ms. mar. >> overhead. >> i'm sorry. overhead projector. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am ann mar, requesting rehearing to request an injustice for my right of construction to damage my tree's roots. i direct this board's attention to this undisputed arborist report stating excavation will damage 6% of trees critical roots at corner of stairway. and at least 17% of trees protection zone. arbor states this is not meant to represent total excavation damages. this will force upon me unjust burdens where i am forced to assume liability from exposures
to my tree being hazard tree that will have a perilous impact on the welfare and safety of surrounding neighbors. in this diagram, as guided by the tree's protection legislation act, governed by public resource code 21,000, my tree will be rendered a hazard tree. in this diagram -- i'm sorry, as documented here and reviewed by structural engineers liu and chong, confirms extent of project's excavation will have a significant impact on my tree's roots in accordance with urban forestry guidelines. this is serious injuries to trees. and where planning code 101 mandates neighbors be protected from construction's impact.
and city's charter section 3.651 mandates reversal of manifest injustice. upholding this permit will have a materially injurious impact with great financial burdens, liabilities, worry, and emotional distress, that is forced upon me. as supported here, a rehearing is justified where evidence heard about trees damages as a civil matter needs to be exemplified in light of discretionary review reform effort act. as defined, permit holder's construction does not balance this right to develop with impact on nearby property and occupants. thereby, for the wealthy and for the welfare and safety of surrounding neighbors. please take a second look. thank you.
>> thank you. okay. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> hi. thank you. i am rachel aspenson, the permit holder. i didn't put in an additional brief. i was completely taken down by flu the day that was due and wasn't for a lack of concern or understanding of importance of this. i just physically could not make it down. so i just want to reiterate the fact that we did in our initial which is that we hired the professionals, the report conclusion hasn't changed. the amount of roots that will be damaged is well within the limits that she recommends being okay and safe. we're committed to making sure the tree is protected throughout the process and the recommendation she gives. and at the end of the day, none of us want this to become a hazard tree, and that is our
intent and what we plan and have continued to plan to do. so nothing has changed there. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. a couple of points on the rehearing request. i don't believe that the standards necessary to justify granting a rehearing have been met by the appellant in this case. there were issues raised in the rehearing request regarding the d.r. reform effort which is the board may or may not be familiar with. a process that we have and that we had about 10 years ago that never was enacted. we never enacted the d.r. perform effort. but actually had we enacted the d.r. reform effort, the d.r. that was heard by the planning commission never would have been heard by the planning commission in this case because given the issues that were raised by the appellant in their d.r. request, it would not have met the threshold for us to take it to the planning commission. that is noted in our d.r. staff report that under the pending d.r. reform guideline, it would
not have been fwrouth brought to the commission. the commission did hear as a discretionary review and considered the tree issues raised and in their motion or not taking d.r. and approving the project, they noted the issues that were raised by the appellant and found no changes were needed to address the appellant's issues regarding the tree. that was something that the planning commission did consider and did actually note in their discretionary review action memo. i did review the arborist's report provided by the permit holder, while i am not an arborist as you know, i don't read it the same way the appellant does, quite simply. that is all i can say. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? no? is there any public comment on this item? okay. no public comment, so commissioners, the mater is submitted. >> commissioners? >> after watching the video of
last week's hearing as well as being present for this hearing, i think the bar for manifest injustice is high and it has not been met here. >> any other comments? do you have a motion? >> a my motion is to deny the request for jurisdiction or for rehearing. >> okay. on the basis that there is no manifest injustice? >> no manifest injustice. >> a we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the request that there is no manifest injustice. on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> an aye. >> a vice president swig. >> aye. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> that request is denied 5-0. we will now move on to item 6, 19-010, anne leonard with department of building inspection. 704 wisconsin street protesting the issuance on february
20,2019, to charles brinton of an alteration permit, revision to building permit application 2015/02/03/7358, change of railing from style wire grid to tempered glass, addition of a free-standing spa at approved deck. this is application number 2019/01/25/1281. and we will hear from the appellants first. >> i'm sorry. could you hold on one second? >> sure. i'm sorry. they just called me this afternoon. commissioner honda -- >> commissioner honda: and i wish to disclose that i am a partner in a group that has representing it and their appearance before the evening's board will have no affect on my decision. >> thank you. please go ahead. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. i am john statton, and my partner anne leonard and i are the property owners of 704 wisconsin line 25 feet loot line
to lot line and we file this appeal because the proposed hot tub and tempered glass siding is a significant change in the use for the new deck. we have strong concerns over increased loss of privacy, nighttime lighting, loud ongoing noise, increased visual clutter, and potential loss of property values as a result. we respectfully request overturning of the permit. 704 wisconsin is an almost complete rebuild extending the height to the permitted maximum and allowing a roof deck. they built an attractive monster home that dwarfs the one next to it. the prior deck was located substantially downhill as you can see. their new deck is less than 2 feet lower than our bedroom floor and very visible. this raises four concerns. concern number one, the expanded uses and unreasonable invasion of our privacy. the city has been rethinking residential roof deck permitting to try and mitigate impacts to
adjacent neighbors including the loss of quality of life from noise and diminished privacy. the deck was portrayed in the original plans as a min ma'am structure with open steel wire railings and mostly used with daytime activities and no rights. without wind blocking glass and hot tubs does not lend itself to regular cold and windy nighttime uses. this permit extends an adverse use into the nighttime hours. the bedroom and primary bathroom have windows looking out right over the deck. regular night use with related lighting is clearly not in line with how this was sold in the permitting process. we reasonably object to looking up from our bed or walking from the bath and seeing people using a hot tub and peering in. we share a building with 710 wisconsin and this neighbor's bedroom is even closer to the proposed hot tub. she has the same concerns about sound, light, and the loss of privacy and provided a letter of opposition. concern number two, excessive
nighttime lighting. multiple light servicing a hot tub and increased night use in general, the stair cabin light would be on more frequently, is another significant privacy violation where the lighting is so close to a place we are trying to sleep. the owners at 704 have suggested in their response we buy a shade. we remind them that they are the ones impacting the quiet use of the bedroom by installing unpermitted lighting by one of their own exhibits it is possible to see the primary window is over a stairwell and not easily reachable for a blind. we reject the argument that we look out at the lights of san francisco, so what's a few more closer lights shining in your window? we note the fixture they recently installed for the stair cabin has a bare bulb shining into our room. there was nothing done to mitigate its impact. at the time the step was permitted, there was no lighting showing on the roof plans. now they have installed and permitted deck lighting by accident and this unpermitted lighting is a serious concern. we would ask of these lights and
the stairhouse penthouse light be removed until a lighting study by properly qualified professional can be prepared showing how it will impact our property and assurances that these will be minimally invasive. this is being presented for therapeutic uses and anyone who suffered the injuries described. we note several things. they are remodelling the house and an indoor therapeutic tub is a common amenity that would not adversity impact us and the neighbor. a therapeutic use denotes regular need and this means the hot tub will be used on a regular basis providing an unreasonable intrusion tonighttime use of our bedroom. finally, without knowing how therapeutic use is performed, we wonder why a four to five adult person size tub is requireed. is regular group use anticipateed? how often will four to five people be expected to use the tub? we do not have air conditioning
and sleep with the windows open throughout the year. the 704 owners maintain our window is only a small one and therefore should be closed to cut their noise. at considerable cost we installed this window recently for ventilation and our bedroom no longer has the slider they have portrayed from an old real estate ad. with a window open or through the bedroom older single pane with it closed, the conversation and tub use at night will be a major source of irritation and ongoing nuisance. while the owners may or may not turn this into a party deck, there is nothing stopping this if they or a subsequent owner wanted to do or rent it out for an air bnb, for example. the hot tub and heater, pumps, and jets is a significant source of noise on its own and will produce over 42 decibels. together a hot tub and one or more conversations which reach 60 decibels from the user cans easily top 100 decibels of irritating noise which is the
equivalent of an alarm clock, 80 decibels, or lawn mower, 90 decibels, at night only a short distance from where we are trying to sleep. we submit this will be a possible violation of san francisco's noise ordinance which permits a 5 decibel above ambient. we ask a qualified sound energy assess the hot tub to determine if this will violate the ordinance before the installation. concern number four, this is out of character for our neighborhood and adds a significant amount of visual cluter to the roof. roof deck hot tubs are not in common use in petrero hill. this is not in character with our neighborhood. the changing from wire to tempered glass raises concern about glass reflecting and sun reflecting off it into our bedroom at different times of the day and different seasons. there is really no true such thing as a nonreflective glass under the right conditions. prior to to permitting glass
siting, there should be the orientation to insure minimal effect on our bedroom. if it is not clear and kept clear, it adds a rather ugly blight to the own minimal railing plan. about a year ago the owners rejected the offer to pay for the access. since then we have not had any further direct interaction. no time did the owners attempt to contact us to discuss the proposed hot tub even after we filed the appeal. we do not want to dignify their lives and personal attacks with a response, but creating a nuisance to your neighbors, perhaps personally attacking us may be the only strategy. this permit represents a significant and fundamental change from what was initially approved and will extend the use of the deck into the night in a way that will bring intrusive lighting and irritating noise and increased visual clutter. >> sir, your time is up. you will have time in rebuttal.
>> thank you for your time and conversation. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, president fung, members of the board. i am here on behalf of the permit holders, mary norton and charlie brinton. the appeal before you is of an approved permit for a small four-person, 3 foot tall hot tub on existing approved roof deck and glass railing to replace wire or lattice work wire railing. the tub is clad in wood to create a seamless, integrated
look and reduce the visibility, and the state-of-the-art as to noise. the overhead please. can you zoom? this is an image of the tub. here you can see the glass railing. that's the hub wire and we submit the glass railing is a significant improvement in terms of impact and visibility over the hog wire railing.
this first image shows the two properties. you can see permit holders at 704 wisconsin. appellants are two houses away. they are uphill. they are located to the west. you can see that this roof deck is as far forward on permit holder's roof as possible, and the tub itself is as far forward on the deck as possible. this image is north-south oriented. you can see being further west and with prevailing winds from the west, any noise from the deck and the tub would be carried away from appellant's home. the glass railing at 42 inches tall will also add to serve as a sound barrier.
this image shows the location of the tub pushed up against the existing parapet and on the parapet, you can see the lighting in question. those are two down lights. we feel this is hardly a significant contribution tonighttime lighting in a neighborhood. they would only be used when the tub is being used. and parapet like the deck railing is 42 inches tall and taller than the tub. this image is important and it shows the roof deck and where the tub would be located from appellant's home. you look closely, tub is here up against the parapet and really because of its size and the existence of the parapet isn't
differentiated from the view of the parapet at all or blocking views from appellant's home. these are the windows of appellant's home here, here, and here. facing the roof deck. as we've noted, they are all inoperable. this hallway window has a small operable window at the base. we just don't see how the tub has noise impacts on the appellant's home where these windows are all inoperable. this is the appellant's master bedroom with a deck off the rear, as you can see, facing to the west away from and scarcely visible from the permit holder's deck.
these are images of the roof from appellant's home. you can see that they really don't provide much visibility of the deck and the notion that the permit holders would be peering in appellant's home just isn't reasonable. the appellants refer to the planning department's proposed roof deck guidelines for the planning commission is noted the guidelines were not adopted, but they're actually helpful in explaining why this proposal is reasonable. among the guidelines that the planning department recommended were, first, rooftop features be sensitively located so they don't dominate the appearance of a building. the hot tub and its small profile, the wood cladding t location near the parapet achieves this objective.
further guidance from planning department staff was to design windscreens to minimize impacts to light of adjacent buildings. the glass railing achieves this. another recommendation is that consistent with state law, setting aside 15% of the roof area for solar panels. the permit holders have done that and are installing solar. the overarching point of the proposed guidelines and the existing residential design guidelines, which really govern here, is for rooftops to be design sod that they minimize light, air, noise, and prooifr si impacts on neighbors -- and prooi privacy impacts on neighbors. and any new or increased and chairs or tables on the deck. for those reasons, we ask you deny the appeal and uphold the
permit and are available for any donations. >> is this building multiple units? >> it is not. >> was it ever considered to put the hot tub in the backyard? >> they thought about that and it is a relatively small backyard and would take up a lot of the space of the young child. it's kind of a valuable part of the property. and there if there are noise impacts, it simply has noise impacts on another property. we think up on the roof further away and downwind is really the lowest impact that it could have. >> other questions? >> okay. thank you. mr. sanchez?
>> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so the proposal here of this permit seeks essentially to change the railing from a previously approved deck and also add a spa or standing spa. it does not expand or change the footprint of the deck. so it's relatively discrete matter. the project does comply with the planning code. it was properly reviewed and approved by the planning department. the appellant in the brief submitted a copy of the draft, and actually it is a draft of our draft guidelines. it is not even what we essentially submitted to the planning commission as our draft guidelines. so this draft that was included by the appellant, i am not sure how they obtained it because it wasn't ever to my knowledge submitted to the public, but it does state we would regulate hot tubs and those types of features. that is not what the department decided to do. that is not what the department put forward to the planning commission last summer. and yet the guidelines are still a draft and have not been