Transcripts For SFGTV 20140207

Taken as a result of this project. Thats been a huge problem in this neighborhood. Weve had several homes make additions that destroy the light and airflow of the adjoining homes. That is the great concern. I think what happens here is ms. White head needs clarity in what shes going to do and do it quickly so everybody understand exactly the limits and the scope of the project is going to be. Once that happens, i think the neighborhood will support her and allow her to get on with the project, but its very important this be done quickly to save her time and save the neighbors the anguish and time of dealing with this project. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Mr. Zaretzky you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. I think the issue is very clear to us and that is that the plans that you approve, were in themselves wrong. After the negotiation that supervisor farrell ended and they were supposed to submit the plans, they snuck into features which were never discussed. The other one was the curb cut. In each stage of the game, what characterizes this whole enterprise is deposition. Deception and we are going to take this up with the board of supervisors. We again request that you either revoke or suspend this permit because a permit is a permit is a permit whether its decide on technical reasons or any other reasons, it is still a permit and it has to relate to its mother permit. The relationship here is one of fraud. Therefore, i strongly urge you to support the neighborhood and support honest and integrity because the board, your work is supposed to be transparent and accountable. You cannot have material leaving the city of the neighbors to simply fiction. Its about time that we enforce our rules evenhandedly in all cases. That is one of the issues that we are very concerned about. Of course, the other issue is that as city Planning Works through it and dbi works through it and well work through this and the issue of the height is serious and we have had a n is is survey or work on it. The claims miss white head makes is on a sight survey of the Property Line. The plans were supposed to show that eliminated and the height of the building and the north stairs in the back. What we got was an entirely different plan that we hadnt noticed that all these issues were snuck in. Ms. White head is a professional at this. Her professional career is remodeling houses. Shes held to a higher standard than to a person buying this for the first time. The fact she states this is going to be her home, we dont know that. We know shes done other projects in the neighborhood and sold them. In fact a person should be held to a higher standard when they are a professional in the field. This is not a mistake. This is purposeful and knowledgeably purposeful to deceive the neighborhood. Sir, you indicated the curb cut was not known to you . No. The curb cut was never discussed with either supervisor farrell or with catherine stephanie. It was never discussed. It was in this plan after we agreed and signed it and they were supposed to prepare revised plans. His idea of r revised plans did not ever include this in the agreement. For the last year she was asked to submit postage due to 311 hearing to the city planning and shes refused to do it. She wanted to build the building and get the permit after the fact. Thank you. We can hear rebuttal from the permit holder, ms. White head. Go ahead. These are the approved plans the board looked a there is a curb cut and there always has been a curb cat. Cut. This is an example of being accused of being deceptive when the deposition is coming from the appellant. Its been the hardest thing for me to defend this project because of his on going twisting of facts. I also want to address mr. Sanchezs understanding of what the board of appeals approved. There was a revision suggested to combine the units into a dwelling unit merger. The Planning Department communicated that would not be allowed under the addenda. So what was allowed though was interior changes of reconfiguring the 2 2 units and door changes iechlt i wanted to clear that up that we did not sneak this into the addenda for the merger. We did discuss about how to reconfigure the two units. 2 units. What mr. Sanchez putting this forward is why we are making changes to the house. They are the owners and the project sponsors desire to make changes if they are not conforming with the approved plans, that is board approved. My question is my understanding is not that those plans were frozen and there was a condition of no changes. Again, historically, those plans were initiated with my prior client, the older woman who just wanted a minimal amount of work. The new owner who came at the time of the appeal hearing wanted to make changes and was assured she can make changes at the interior. I just want to have it clear that the project sponsor can make changes to her property beyond what was approved by the board and the Planning Department. The dwelling merger was never part of the appeal nor did we try to part that as part of it. The other thing i just wanted to say with this here, i know if you can underline on july 5th, irving zaretzky keeps saying he had no idea about the height. I saw this letter or may 3, 2013. He saw this on july 5, 2012. It clearly states 3 points of our house unbeknownst to us that he measured and he filed the date after he found out that our height was not correct. One thing i want to say is i have reached out and tried to talk to neighbors. I feel that irving doesnt even live on the block and he has somehow been very crafty at eliminating. Sorry your time is up. I have some questions. Is the deck enlarged . No. Its not enlarged. The plans, the permit that we have i think was issued may 23, 2013, our deck, everything we have built and i wrote this to scott after because i think hes been away for a few months. I just wanted to remind them that we have not made any exterior changes that were not on those plans that the permit said was approved may 23, 2013. Which we were allowed, the board of appeals was a start but we were allowed in that finding to make changes providing that irving zaretzky was okay with. He didnt care about interior changes and the Planning Department was okay. They did. I think Scott Sanchez looked at our approved plans and building looked at them and walked around our building and found 100 percent we did not exceed in any scope in anyway those plans. On the exterior . Correct. We have not even touched the roof because of all this. Thats one thing the building said dont touch the fourth floor. We have not touched the roof. Can i interrupt you . As i understand the planning and Zoning Administrator, the plans that were submitted and that are now under suspension reflected design or drawings that were inconsistent with what this board approved, is that correct or not . I think they are pretty consistent. I think we had the plan that the board approved and then we were understood that we would make further changes. Ignore what the board approved, is that what you are saying . No. We did not ignore. All interior. But the deck from the Zoning Administrator appeared on the revised plans reflected, a size increase to the deck after this board said it cant look like that. Can i . From my understanding in 2011, the decks that are built right now and the decks and the point to the variance was that the existing decks that were there could be rebuilt or remain because they had fire damage. Those decks that are built right now and one deck hasnt even been touchdown is the identical foot print of what has been historically there for years. What about the plans submitted . Were they drawn to expand it . Let me answer this. This is a complicated answer to this. There is on a set of plans that the board looked at there is a reduction to the deck. This happened in the middle of negotiations and settlements where i was communicating with martin ron at the Building Department about exiting from the rear yard and the appellant issued had nothing to do with the height. Its all about the steps on the side yard. That had to do with exiting from the rear. So, the negotiation with martin ron was if i cut the existing deck back 2 feet, then the solution i came up with to satisfy irving was okay. In the process, we discovered, i discovered a different way to get out, to exit. So that i didnt need to cut back the existing deck. So i have not constructed for the Zoning Administrator primarily his benefit, that paper trail, but we do have an approved plan of that basically the historic existing deck not being cut back 2 feet. So it wasnt a proposal to enlarge, it was actually a proposal to reduce what was there which we dropped because we didnt need to. Does that make sense . Yes, but you took a chance. Okay. I have nothing further. Mr. Kwaung, rebuttal . Good evening commissioners, john kwaung department of public works. It appears on the face that the permit issued by the department of public works is very simple and straight forward permit for a minor encroachment for a ramp that leads to a future garage in the property. However from the discussion here there is issues related to a variety of issues that is tied directly to a Building Permit which our encroachment permit was tied to and thats where the conundrum and difficulty lies. I would hope that my colleagues at both planning and building will be able to resolve this amicably among all parties bought ultimately the permit we issued currently assess satisfies all the merits of the department of public works code. If it needs to be adjusted if that is the case, the department may need to review that encroachment to make sure it continues to satisfy our requirements. Currently we believe it is correctly issued based upon the information we currently have. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez, anything further . Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Again this permit is not really whats at issue but it is tied to the permit that is at issue, thats why we are requesting until the underlying permit issued are being resolved. Im available for any questions. Thank you, mr. Duffy. Thank you, commissioners, the matter is yours. If you would allow me to leave the materials . I dont think i need them because i have enough information. Based on what i have heard today and i think im in agreement with the suggestion by the Zoning Administrator which has concurrence on the department of public works that we should continue to the call of the chair until we have a better understanding from planning as to the status of the underlying Building Permit before we make a motion on the especially if there are more appeals. We would like to, we should aggregate everything just to have a resolution one time. I would also agree. I will make that motion. Okay. I will move to continue this appeal to the call of the chair pending, just call of the chair, based on the facts. It is helpful to know when you want it to be pulled back. It sounds like you want it to come back after the underlying permits become resolved. Suspension is either revoked or modification is submitted. Would that be correct . I think maybe just the resolution by compliant plans. Stop work is removed. So its really relating to the suspension of the permits. There are several permits suspended. Until that matter is resolved . That sounds good. Do you have a question about the process . If you do, come to the microphone. I will entertain a process related question. I dont want to hear further argument. Can i say concern . Is that every ounce of ability for irving to appeal anything will be and if you dont let this go through, its just going to prolong. Okay. I understand. I dont mean to argue. The ground level is not going to change. There is nothing that will change with this driveway. Okay, you are making an argument. Im trying not to make an argument. I understand that it up sets you that we are going to continue this and the process prolong, but weve got an issue that we heard about with respect, and maybe it will be resolved quickly and then we can proceed. Okay . Okay, we should call the roll, mr. Pacheco. The clerk we have a motion from the president to continue this matter to the call of chair, the boards indefinite calendar and this is pending resolution of the suspension of the underlying Building Permits. On that motion, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, aye, the vicepresident absent. Commissioner honda . Aye. The vote is 40. This is moved to call of chair. Thank you. I would like to have a very short break item 7 jerry weiss, appellanttss vs. Zoning administrator, respondent 272 Upper Terrace. Protesting the granting on december 16, 2013, to neil pernick, rear yard obstruction variance legalize a fence at the rear Property Linee. Case no. 2013. 0923v. Sf 71234 well start with the appellant. Before i begin, could i update our brief with a couple of developments that have happened since the deadline for submissions. These are just factual matters that are not part of my argument. They are just developments happened in the last couple of weeks. That is part of your time. Well, i will just skip it. Good evening, commissioners, im jerry white, the appellant in this case and the designated spokesman for my neighbors and fellow citizens. I moved to San Francisco in 1978 and lived on Portrero Hill and my daughter was born at ucsf and for the last 20 years my wife and i have made our home on Mount Olympus. We know this city well and i especially love San Francisco especially those Hidden Treasures that are easily missed where i walk my dogs. Those of us who have taken part in political campaigns and moved through social progress, are aware that whatever the issue of with half the people you talk to dont care at all whether its a nonconforming fence or equal rights for all or the identities of the elected representative. The story is pretty much the same about half the people dont have the time or inclination to be involved. The other half will care, they will vote and sign a petition if one is frod presented to them and thats about it and there are the few that care a lot and they write letters and contact their Public Officials and they enlist their friends and neighbors to their cause and donate money and of course the ones who care the most show up at the meetings and the public hearings whether at 10 00 a. M. Or 5 00 p. M. They care and show up a lot and those impact our public policy. They determine what tomorrow will look like and in this instance the ones who care wrote to the Planning Department and have been writing to you for the last couple of weeks. Overwhelmingly we wrote and spoke in opposition of the granting of this variance. The activist know when 20 people or more come to sit on a variance, the issue must be compelling and important. Its worth asking, just what is it that these people care so much about. There is no money to be made here, no business advantage, there is certainly no entertainment value. There is noing to add to your resume. So just what is it that is so compelling. What we care about is called stewardship. The idea that those of us who care a lot are responsible for what we all hold in common. What we hold in common in this case is unique and extraordinary and now threatened. San francisco is a city of views, some say we are obsessed with views and this decision is obsessed with views. For the north we have the golden gate, and al traz island and mount diablo. These can be seen from different parties of the city. You can see these views all over town. These views are common sense. What is unique about Mount Olympus park what is extraordinary is that not that you can see the east bay from there. Its something more illusive and more to define. Its not what you can see but where you can be while you see it. Its a very special place, a quiet place where one might go for inspiration or contemplation and a place where fences dont really belong. By far most people who come here arrive on foot. There is no tour buses, its one of those precious Hidden Treasures. And after having climbed Mount Olympus, we find the Property Lines closer to the heavens. This is when truso chose to adopt the amount of lighting. We are the stewards of this and we speak for all others who come to Mount Olympus who may themselves be speakers of beauty and light. Now its time to come down from the mountain top and to discuss the issue at hand. What i have been talking to is known as the pedestrian open space experience. San franciscos planning code defines open space as traditional parks and green spaces from playing fields to Natural Landscapes as well as components of the public rightofway that have been improved to enhance the pedestrian experience. There is no doubt the city owned property and its improvements which directly adjoin the nonconforming fence at Upper Terrace qualify as open space and deserving of its protection. Its that specific context that i wish to address tonight. That question is did the Zoning Administrator error in the findings met. In the brief before you we have already made our arguments and i dont want to restate those arguments, but i do want to call your attention to finding 3. Finding 3 is necessary for the requirements of the substantial property rights. There is no statement to that effect in this decision. Moreover no evidence is presented that the variance is in fact necessary. The requirement of finding 3 is not ambiguous in anyway. Its not enough that a variance would allow a substantial property right in order to be granted, the variance must be necessary. The reason for this requirement is that a variance is not to be lightly granted. Whenever possible the code itself must be followed. If there are other options for preserving the rights in question, option which are code conforming, they must take precedent and there are other options. Emails sent to mr. Sanchez prior to the hearing laid out options for security. Its not necessary to list them but to know they exist and have been suggested both prior to and at the public hearing on august 28th. There is no indication that the administrator suggested these suggested option or any other wunsz. What matters here is the Zoning Administrator has failed to state the requirements have been met. Thank you. We can hear from the variance holder now. Hi. My name is suzanne and this is my husband. We are the residents and owners. We are here once again to reiterate the case for a fence we constructed with the citys approval at the rear boundary of our property. The facts well share with you and support our case is what we presented previously. This is why well expect that you will come to the same conclusion that the Zoning Administrator did and namely its reasonable for us to want and has m it the conditions for the variance to be approved and the Zoning Administrator did not error and that the complaints are unfounded. We moved into our home on july 2012 and discovered the sidewalk of the Property Line had a direct line of sight into our space. We can look at people looking directly down at us and 1 person in our yard. We decided it was necessary to build a fence to preserve our privacy and increase the security of our Property Line. In jun 2013 we applied for a permit and then had an inspector come and that inspector approved it. Subsequent to that, the city suspended the permit following complaints of Neighbors Without appeals being filed. We have documentation of a compromise in which we lowered the fence from the original height which from 13 feet by another 18 inches 4 feet above the sidewalk. The only opposition that was stated during and before the variance hearing we had was based on the claim that the fence had obstructed the views for people of shorter stature in our neighborhood. The height was only 4 feet. In december the city approved the variance with a condition that the fence be further reduced to 3 1 2 feet. As you can see the appr