Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 51816 20160621 : comp

Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 51816 20160621

Boards legal assistants executive director. Were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. At the table in front is senior building inspector joe duffy dbi providing the advice for the department of building inspection and joined when i Scott Sanchez the Zoning Administrator who will be representing Planning Department and Planning Commission and carli short the bureau of the department of public works as well as chris buck forecast with the the public works please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 Mission Street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking so, please stand now do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you very much so item nun on the boards calendar is general Public Comment an opportunity for the people to address the board on the jurisdiction but not on tonight agenda any public general Public Comment seeing none, the second item is commissioners questions or comments. Commissioners anything . Lets go warriors. Okay 83 and ethiopian item 3 the minutes commissioners. Any additions, deletions, or changes if not a motion to accept. Move forward you any Public Comment on the minutes to adopt commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner swig thank you very much that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero the next item is one that is going to be done i understand that the nellie win is here are you with the person who great please begin the interpretation of the item and everything that was said during the item that needs to be interpreted. Madam director prior to be starting because of the length of our calendar and the amount of cases to be heard we try to get this we cut the Public Comment to 2 minutes across the board so we can get to the later cases in the evening. Okay item 4 a jurisdiction request the subject property on rectifying a letter from the jurisdiction of the Building Permit application which was issued on february 19, 2016, by department of building inspection is evident and the jurisdiction was filed at the board office on may 22, 2016, the project to add two bedrooms and relocate the bathroom on the first floor and one full abandonment on the 72 hour and one remodel on the second story start with the requester step forward and because you have an interpreter well give you 6 minutes to speak to the board. But youll need to speak into the microphone when it is time. So, please begin. Were ready yeah. speaking foreign language. my name is ann win. speaking foreign language. im at the address 221129 avenue, 2002. speaking foreign language. so i live in the house for 14 years and seeing i have it from the first moment the house included all the windows. speaking foreign language. this neighborhood is very safe and my neighbor is very nice and gentle. speaking foreign language. during the 14 years. speaking foreign language. so mr. Can bought the house on river street i knew he didnt spend any time there before. speaking foreign language. so mr. Can have paperwork to permit the construction but he did not let me know about it. speaking foreign language. thats why i have to delays when i you know when i submit my letter to the field. speaking foreign language. mr. Can fixed the entire house included the inside and outside. speaking foreign language. i dont know if he fix the house to live in or rent out or to sold it. speaking foreign language. that the fact that he built the deck effects any families a everybody else around it. speaking foreign language. especially for my house location. speaking foreign language. sorry a minute. speaking foreign language. because the location of the deck is directed to any room i feel like anyone standing on the deck you know can see straightforward to any room. speaking foreign language. and i have from views in the credit cards to have the ocean views i love the fresh air. speaking foreign language. my children love to hang out in the garden and play in the garden. speaking foreign language. plus my child has asthma so my childs need more clear air that helps with the situation. speaking foreign language. and i want to say that building the deck is very inconvenient and make me feel very uncomfortable for my privacy for me and my family. speaking foreign language. once again for the safety and the health of my familys and all the people around the neighborhoods i ask if you, you can consider the permissions of building the deck thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Thank you well hear from the permit holder now. Good afternoon. My name is derrick the designer and permit holder were the architect that drew up the plans for 1915 rectifying ill start with the design of the deck the deck height is 9 feet one hundred and 13 inches off the grade and in the planning code nothing under 10 feet not requiring the 311 notices it is 10 feet including the stairs and subject property 1915 river it is one across from the avenue in were invading the two 22 privacy were invading through someone elses backyard our adjacent neighbor which is on the map is 1909 rivera. Now on the subject property the deck itself is if or 2211, 29 after the windows that facing our decks are Property Line window on the Property Line are those windows permitted . Are they ever you know on permit or there, there before or existing we do know i cant say theyre not they might be but theyre a Property Line window and regarding the avenue yards did yards so close to an open space but it is enclosed with a patio it is we have a picture it shows the enclosure with those windows installed and the Property Line in San Francisco i believe there are no real i believe were not blocking any sunset and open space of 22, 11, 29 avenue and we got our plans approved based on code compliant and it was issued and we built according to plans. Thank you. Ive got a question, sir so looking at the brief wasnt clear that is a side yard you said a vacant lot between. That was a vacant lot it was on rivera street that is the same lay out, same deck were basically flush with our property. Okay. Your the third house from the corner. Side third from the corner. Can you thrum what youre lot size. It is by one hundred square feet our zoning should be 25 percent rear yard variance within that rear yard area. Thank you. Anything from the department the jurisdiction request. Sew Scott Sanchez Planning Department this is in the rh1 the deck is code compliant and a notification would have been required im available to answer any questions thanks. Mr. Duffy anything. Good evening joe duffy dbi the Building Permit mr. Appeals to have been issued properly by dbi a typical remodel on the ground floor rooms at the deck and rear didnt require the firewalls the deck has been pulled in from Property Line a current approval and we the building is second story and we did the structural notification and there is an open complaint on the property i on intersections it is filed by the appellant and it was the deck was blocking the view i cant see my room in the window in the yard so we investigated that the complaint is open the inspection on the deck and permit was on unapproved plan many its updated prior to the suspension of the permit im available to answer any questions. Your notice only goes to the adjacent. Thats correct. Doesnt go to the. No. The appellants property. Right a structural notification for both sides. Subject excuse me to this hearing the nov will it be abated. Not an nov we issued a from the permit is upheld we certainly have no reason to keep it au open. It was hard to look at the pictures from different angles but properly lined windows if the appellants. Yes. Is that legal or not legal. There are very hard to say youll have to do a thorough investigation to see what the original permit youre allowed the Property Line windows under new construction and they have to be 3 quarter fixed windows in the metal frame you give up all relevance if someone want to build against you a lot of buildings have property windows many, many years ago we dont get that many complaint unless Something Like that couples theyre hard to investigate youre trying to keep bodies happy those windows are there for 40 or 50 or 60 years youre not popular. Well had a couple of those cases here. Right depending on how things go certainly on the neighborhood the permit holder not and warrant the jurisdiction. Right. Right we can look at it. Just asking. Thank you inspector duffy any Public Comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. I might explain for the appellant the standard of review in a jurisdiction is whether the department erred most of the discussion was on the actual issues of the case itself notice was properly given notice that of required properly given i dont find that the department erred. I agree. I concur would you like to make a motion. Move to deny the appeal the permit was properly issued. Okay. Thank you so the motion then by commissioner fung 0 deny the jurisdiction on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero he wanted to ask from the parties for item number 8 on 21st street are in the room if you could raise your hands are you expecting many patterson who is not in the room well move on and try to get to you soon, well take item 5 panning ramp versus the urban forestry on Mission Street requesting the denial retrieval and denial to not plant 60 inch box trees at the subject property it was held on october 2015 and on for further consideration on october 2015 that was continued to allow time for the parties to talk about to appear before the board to address how americans with disabilities act impact this permit on 2015 that was continued to allow time for the party to further discuss the citys requirement for the site and try to develop a plan so im hoping that the parties to this case are here this it public works in the room wonderful i on intersections we should hear from the departments and see were tasked with action and then well hear from the appellant. Commissioner honda shall we give each side 3 minutes . Okay. Thank you good evening across the city bucking urban forest urban forester thank you for recapping the history this is a lengthy case the original permit to remove 5 trees 2 were very large and to replace with 5, 60 box replacement trees that didnt we were not able to sign off since the october hearing we met with mr. Jensen onsite with the sfmta kevin jensen i have his email ill put it on the overhead his concern with the layout was that the last second sfmta once the building is inhibited they changed the code marks dont line up so the last several months the applicant the appellant had to go back to the sfmta to get permission to modify the color curve so thats been done at this point and i do have an email interest kevin jensen he sent the other day to overhead please. He says thank you for the confirmation it is depicted as discussed, in fact, sure the appellant stated see below the screen shot the highlighted areas well fill in a planter concrete to accommodate you weve agreed upon upon site and kevin jensen is acceptable our ada issues are addressed and the appellant is waiting for mta to color the curbs but the ada issue was addressed at this point, i on intersections were circling back to the one idea to start over move the utilities it sclft with those trees and other option our department suggested is a way forward is they planned 36 inch boxed trees and this is 29 hundreds to install a 6 manipulative box tree is 5,000 so times 5 trees 10,000 plus a fee the board is tacked how to come up with a penalty this is not a penalty this is what was planned not arbitrary and one way to move forward this is the one remaining issue we have no other issues on site regarding this permit. Thank you, mr. Buck. Thank you well hear from the appellant now. Thats correct across the city across the city kevin and i met onsite as chris said we respect to sfmta and applied for the white curb and as a result kevin wanted a loading zone we accommodated that and made i paid all the fees kevin from ada is okay with that and given us the green light to move forward i might add that overflow room we had committed to doing 5, 60 inch box trees but planted 9 as you recall that was dictated saying the landscape was we followed the better landscape plan we planted 9, 36 inch trees we thought that was sufficient the result of plan check confusion within the department as to how we end up with that we are cognizant of the fact that you know we should have come back to the board of appeals and clarified that but those projects tend to be pretty complicated what you know executed them and had a number of permits that was one of 75 permits we got the drawings stamped so the 9 trees i guess you have to review those as part of plan check so in an effort to close this out i on intersections we left off talking about the difference and the other thing from dpw is paying the in lui fee which is 18 per tree i heard a total of 5541 we can do a check for that you know, i on intersections that chris agrees the site looks at great the trees as we see the projector we had brought up our landscaper architect says that within 5 years a 36 inch box tree will fill out what a 60 inch box they trithis is in 5 years a 60 box tree would have been were looking to the board to close it this out were in line with dpw and ada and fta this site looks at good were looking to close out at the direction of board tonight thank you. Thank you thank you. Your number is different than the d s he said 5 at 21 hundred. That was the delta so i think the confusing thing with the board is trying to follow kind of a rule book book with the city an in lui fee which is 1890 and the delta of planting a 36 inch tree and a 60 inch my understanding the 36 tree is 29 hundred to plant and a 60 is 5 thousand that is the delta of 10 thousand 5 hundred we were supposed to plant 60 inch but if you calculate it a number of ways the 5 for 5 the delta is 10 thousand nine hundred or add up you know the total that we spent which is 9 times 2 nine hundred versus 4 times 75 hundred were looking for a way to close this out and have the board make a discussion how we want to do so. Are you fine with the 10 thousand 5 hundred number that the department has come up with. Yeah. I mean we spent a bunch of money applying to sfmta and phil the concrete taking down existing trees so i on intersections ideally we would like to have it be lower but if this is what the boards decision we can commit to that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Public Comment on this item okay seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. And again, just a reminder what is before you is an appeal of a denial to not plant the 60 inch box trees okay. Perhaps a further response from mr. Buck. Based on your presentation were down to the number. Thank you, commissioners chris buck with public works whenever a new building constructed a number of trees are assessed to be required to be planned this site is required to plant 14 trees to the rightofway in the end theres a Planning Department of 7 trees so 3 of the trees, 4 of the trees are even substitute skulk landscaping for required trees 7 trees planted landscaping totally the equivalent of 4 trees and paying 3 in lui fees to meet the planning code that is where the 5 thousand plus comes up that is charged regardless of 60 inch box issue a total separate fee just to clarify that is the simple price differences between a 36 inch and 60 inch box tree the difference is 2,900 per tree so 10,000 San Francisco public works has an adopt a tree fund in lui fees are adopted we have a mechanism that money is literally a lockbox for tree not purchasing new tires or trucks but towards the planting of new trees we want to commend clarify that amount. So youll be accepting the po and owner o overturning the denial that 10,000 plus will be paid into our tree fund. Yes. And for the record our preference is the 60 inch box trees, however, i will say that the 36 inch box trees were planted a year ago theyre in the ground 36 inch trees and establishing well i can say that the site is doing well it is performing well it is a little bit of a consolation a learning curve when we head into some of the cases but to move forward and based on the number of months weve worked to continue this it seem like indirectly another message to applicants to adhere to the rules of board otherwise the approvals will not accompany we will be okay this treatment. Listening to you is the 10 thousand 5 total or plus the 10 thousand. It would be 10,500 specific for the tree size the other matters is a separate fee that is taken care of okay. Thank you. Thank you. If cliepdz to make the motion there ought to be a price to pay i dont consider that a huge amount. Commissioner swig was not here but the three of us were here. I was here. Yeah. So. I will make the motion to grant the appeal overturn the denial of the department and condition that would be payment of 10,500 into the b u s tree fund. Okay. Thank you so we have a motion in the Vice President to gr

© 2025 Vimarsana