Transcripts For SFGTV 20240622

Is that i understand it unless im being told i think correctly the client paid for accident surveyor after a year and a half if theres any more fees im time out if im mistaken i apologize. I have a question mr. Pollard have you think in contact with ms. Kim and you cant answer and yes. I think ill wait for the department okay. Thank you. One question is that owner occupied. Yes. One hundred percent family and mr. Sanchez is there a question for mr. Sanchez or for mr. Duffy. No, i think im fine commissioners the matter is yours i think the appellant agrees with the z a both want a consolidated set basically would respond to the various concerns raised about what might or minority have been the scope were not exactly sure i believe there is going to be some proposed changes to the railing and things like that which then has to think reflective so i dont mind keeping the jurisdiction to allow them to go through the process of doing a consolidated set and run it threw the department and then bring that back here with an agreement well adapt it. I thought i heard mr. Sanchez say his preference to have the permit denied and get this thing started all over again, it is potentially a cleaner way that is one the mess it way. Weve heard messer. Well initially the contractor is not willing and exactly are you finished i dont know mr. Sanchez do i want to respond to that. Scott sanchez Planning Department our department will face a lot of extra work either way the situation the part of permit holders it seems cleaner to have whole new plans for everyone to review but within the boards jurisdiction whatever your jurisdiction well move to accommodate that. I dont know if so it the cleaner that gets messy weve done that before in terms of looking at a consolidated set let them resolve their parties. I normally would not normally i would normally deny permit and uphold the appeal by the way in this case from the contractor has come forth and said hes willing to do the work at this point and we have a consolidated plan set for all the permits so there is no multiply permits combined into one that is really what the appellant objective here i have no problem with that coming back to the braid as well. Ask i ask mr. Sanchez so the laundry list is that the garage door needs to be made the way it was supposed to be made stairway needs to be adjusted according to what at project sponsors representative testified to driveway panels or tiles need to be installed according to the way they were designed and the door which was changed from one place to another for the secondary unite needs to be moved back. We need they need to pick a project and decide and show that on plans it may be that those changes to widen the door are acceptable. Okay. But never presented in the plans the ambulance we have from the reciprocation permit are not a full set of plans so ive got concerns with the garage and i dont have the original plans i dont think theyre built from 2013 to i think we have to i know the pardon has those plans from what ive seen . Not can theyve applied for what they built is different from what they built from what they applied for. And the following statement im not accusing anybody but like okay. I know we clank 5 things we were not entitled to change and guaranteeing we got away with 3 of them thats what im concerned with happening here you know that, in fact, planning does is it right according to the terms of kooshg to your terms and that the things that they went ahead and the without our knowledge and contrary to the plan they do right and dont get away with 3 out find 5 or it out of 5 again im not accusing them of malicely doing that this is. This is all within. How would you can you achieve that according to commissioner fungs direction. I think either way and certainly in the permit if it were did understand we may say some of the changes are okay some not beyond that if they come back in four weeks with a full set of plans the garage door 9 feet is okay. The board can say no. You have more control by keeping that jurisdiction and you can be more restrictive so, i mean. How much time will you need. We need enough time to review the materials and probably confirm passive built and thats not what is actually built being accurate on the plans but ask ive spoken with id like to take the opportunity in a from our staff ill ask her to work on this with the preservation staff. Two months. I dont know september date Early September would be something that is good. Theres another reason i want to keep this in jurisdiction i think any instance is it goes the other way is a matter of progress goes up substantially. Im not disagreeably with you commissioner looking to get informed as to progress in sequence with commissioner fungs. Motion. Ill move to continue this to september 2nd. Okay. Is that okay with both parties . September 2nd is that a wednesday. Its a wednesday. 5 oclock somewhere. Okay. Lets do that and you know the parties will have to each other informed in case theyre not able to get the consolidated plans approved. I agree short leash or leash. Im going to continue this in hopes theyll come to a resolution. Commissioner thats the goal of a consolidated plan set reviewed by the department. By the department and, of course the appellant is should be available. Consolidated is that a consolidated permit new permit to be filed with dbi or consolidate plan. To be deposited by this board. So reviewed by mr. Sanchez and planning still under this permit to be submitted to us okay. Okay. Just to make it clear to the permit holder and sxhurngz youll have those plans submitted to the boards thursday before no other briefing but the submittal of the plans to the board. Thats correct. Theres a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to continue this to september 2nd the public hearing has been held and this is to allow time for the permit holder to submit a consolidated plan set no additional briefing is loud except for the submittal of the consolidated plan set. Right. On that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you the vote is 4 to zero this matter it continues until september 2nd. Well take a very short break break. That derivatives extra sun or shade it mildews my house it was built built in the 1950s and none 3 that this deck im losing my site so im getting everything and now heres the deck that will have to have rails and so heres the deck my patio area it is plain clothing my view of the views of Golden Gate Park and everything last week that i would be okay with the deck as long as its blow the house the house i showed you right here recently had a deck in the background that is on the ground level i wanted a ground floor instead of a up, up, up deck and like people peeking into my backyards and get parties no way in heck and to me think that is very clear of what im going to say that is blocking my view and everything back in the day this is like voting a new expectation that has to have those things public hearings and all that sort of stuff across the street they built a new they didnt recognize to hear their houses because all the neighbors have to come nobody talked to me before this deck a was built and whatnot my patio area is precious i dont want my area blocked at all i want my view and my house is not going to diminish in Property Value or theyll pay for the diminished value. Thank you brown mr. Brown. We can hear from the permit holder now then theyll be parties and all that stuff. Hello im a Family Member of the public member of the owners of the 1950 property and here to support their stands in defense to the complaint p there are a few power points number one there are a permit for the construction of the deck the deck did more than 4 feet within the Property Line on both sides and it is on this 8 feet in depth within the city limits and the neighbors on both sides have given one hundred percent of the continuation of this deck i believe that the i think neighbors an 1947 have a letter of their stating their support which i believe you guys have received and in terms of blocking any view i do have two pictures oh okay heres the 1950 property and this is his property and as you can see the deck is win city limits 8 feet in depth and another. Can i interrupt you sir not your turn. Go back to your first picture. Yes, sir. This is your building the one in green and yes. Mr. Browns is the one in orange or peach. One house in between. Yes there is and that house has given their support and the other side as well. Im sorry to interrupt please continue. I can assure there will be no parties whatsoever and not allowed with the family at all thank you. Thank you. Okay mr. Sanchez mr. Brown youll have time for that rebuttal after everyone else youll have to wait our turn. Prior not a Financial Disclosure ive known mr. Brown foreclose to 35 years im a sunset guy hes been age different to allow a little bit more leniency here okay. Mraumdz so no plans were submitted with the appeal materials but based on what the description of the work and the permit would appear to be code compliant under the planning code rh1 Zoning District a deep lot to maintain the thirty feet rear yard all the deck is not encroaching and it is allowed no longer than thirty feet above grade you cant i dont have the pictures by the issues that are raised are for the blocking of view i know this is not you r a view is protected and one property is removed by one property that mitigate the concerns of privacy. Im available to answer any questions thank you. Mr. Duffy. Commissioners joe duffy dbi Building Permit is over the county it costs 6,000 a typical what we see over the counter from the Planning Department they have their rooms on the high above grade is over a counter approval for no plans for that i would hope that it is in far enough it didnt require a firewall thats when you get into the dpblg im available to answer any questions but with the plans it is hard to see it is any different from a smaller type of deck. The firewall is less than 3 feet. Yes. Thats correct. The permit holder indicated 4 feet open either does the setback and it is only 25 feet youve got 9 feet if they move is in on one side only firewall only the guardrail from the level from the deck. Thank you any Public Comment seeing none mr. Brown you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. The neighbors dont have a say so their renters not owners of the property right next to me is a renter no say he didnt own the property let to you know that next to them are rernlt good they dont own the property we own our property so thats the big difference you cant judge what renters time and Property Owners have and are you finished baraka a i talk you, you as a friend ive convene you over 35 years; right . So let me just one renter and Property Owners have the same rights as theyre the same here in San Francisco and probably in most other places as well what you present to us is a property that is separated by another property the permit their requiring they got for their deck does not require any notifications that is fully code complying that is fully acceptable by the city and county of San Francisco looking at the property their other than the north side. Okay park but. I know on the north side of the property the sun is so moved from the southeast youll not allows sunlight because of this. Im going to lose my view. Unfortunately, if you heard the dir the view is not a protected right unless you have something. I can coffer their windows with painted. No barry. Theyre only coming out 8 feet it shouldnt effect our situation. It is effecting my situation. Is there anything else you want to tell the board. I want you to decline this and move that blow the deck line. Unfortunately bearing barry it is completely code complying and unfortunately it board has no choice and dont you please let them do a compromise and work with a neighbor. All right. Thank you perry. Is there any rebuttal from the permit holder anything more . No anything further from the Department Commissioners the matter is yours im not hundred percent sure that will block the view in any event the issue is the Property Rights of the permit holders in building a relatively small sdpek decking deck is well win their rights and code compliant unfortunately i dont see the any particular issue to go against their permit. Question. I will move to deny the appeal grant the before this time on the basis it is code compliant. Theres a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to uphold this permit on the basis it is code compliant commissioner president lazarus commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig vote is 4 to zero that permit is uphold on that basis. Commissioner president lazarus no further business before the board were adjourned. Thank you city of San Francisco Historic Preservation commission. Good afternoon, welcome to the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission Wednesday july 15, 2015. The commission does not tolerate any outbreaks at this time. I would like