Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 5, 2011 10:00am-10:30am PDT

10:00 am
to bus shelters around the city equipped with the next bus sign. riders are updated strictly about arrival times. to make this information available, muni has tested push to talk buttons at trial shelters. rider when pushes the button, the text is displayed -- when a rider pushes the button. >> the success of these tests led to the expansion of the program to all stations on the light rail and is part of the new shelter contract, push to talk will be installed. check out the new technology making your right easier every day
10:01 am
>> good evening, and welcome to the meeting of the board of appeals. chris wong will be absent this evening. to my left is the deputy city attorney. she will provide needed legal advice this evening. i am the executive director. we are joined our representatives of the planning department.
10:02 am
we are joined by joseph dufty, the senior building inspector. at this time if you would conduct the swearing-in process. but the board requests you turn off cellphone and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. representatives have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must complete their presentation which in seven minutes. replies have three minutes. to assist the board, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker cards or a business card to the
10:03 am
staff when you come tuesday. -- come to speak. the board welcomes suggestions. their survey forms on the left of the podium as well. if you have questions about the hearing, please speak to the board staff after the meeting or call the office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street. this meeting is to broadcast live on government television, and the visa of this meeting are available for purchased directly from sfgtv. thank you for your attention. if you intend to testify at any of the hearings and wish to have the board give your
10:04 am
testimony wait, please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do. please note that any member of the public may speak pursuant to the code. thank you. do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> starting with public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? seeing none, we will move to number two, which is commissioner questions and comments. >> i have a conflict on december 7, so i will be absent from that meeting. >> any other commissioner
10:05 am
comments? any public comment on this item. we will move to item no. 3, the adoption of minister before you for discussion -- of minutes before you for discussion. >> i move for adoption. >> is there public comment on the minutes? seeing none, call the roll. no blacks on that motion to adopt the minutes, and -- >> on that motion to adopt the minutes -- [caling votes] >> those minutes are adopted. >> we move to the jurisdiction request. we received a motion asking that the board take jurisdiction over a building permit.
10:06 am
the appeal time ended on july 1, and it was received at the board on august 19. the permit holder is for altering a gabled roof and replacing windows with french doors and converting an attic. the matter was continued to allow time for a permit to be issued, and no additional briefing was allowed. the original permit was issued and appealed common and and that is scheduled to be heard in december. this is separate from that, because it is a jurisdiction request, and if granted, both appeals would be heard at the same time. we can give each party another three minutes.
10:07 am
>> this is on the original permit. >> i have a photo of the deck in question. thank you for a hearing us again. this was constructed in an deceitful manner while we were on vacation behind a screen. i asked the owner if they were going to construct a debt when they first purchase this, and he assured means they were not.
10:08 am
they approached us after the last meeting and told us they wanted to talk about revising the deck. they said they would contact us. they believed they were in compliance with their own laws, but when they felt they were in a dominant position, they refused to talk to us. not to appeal to your sense of fairness, this bears down on us. the deck is actually bigger than the permit allows. that is why we appealed. we would like the deck gone, but we would like it gone with due
10:09 am
process and a non-deceitful manner. all of their actions have been deceitful. we just want fairness. >> what is the difference between what you think would be allowed under the current laws and what they have built, >> now they have built in excess of 30 feet of what the permit allows. if they could make it so it does not bear down on our private living space, and that is what they alluded to. they felt they were in a dominant position. everything has been deceitful
10:10 am
and dishonest. >> are there other departments the have the same vantage point of your patio? >> no. >> would you like to see a picture of my patio? >> i thought part of the discussion last time was that they were going to raise the height of the fence. they were not going to be able to view the patio. >> yes, and also cutting back the perimeter by about 3 feet so it would not bear down so much. the architect approached us as soon as we love and told us he was contacting of the and we again.
10:11 am
-- contacting us that weekend. they never did. >> roxanne you repeal the revision? >> correct. i think this issue is they have always been very deceitful and tried to get away with what they can. when they feel they are in a less than dominant position, they feel approachable. they do what they can -- what they want. >> thank you but we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners.
10:12 am
i think we are here because of the revision permits and the interest fictional the -- the jurisdiction does not make sense. i spoke to the appellant after the hearing for about 20 minutes last time we were here. i said, let's sit down and talk about it. please call me. three years -- three days later, i got a call. i left my business card. i find it reprehensible someone would lie and say we did not approach him three times in five days. i think the time to approach this is on the calendar for the revision permits that codifies everything missed on this herman, and it corrects all the things. we also asked about adding a
10:13 am
privacy wall. we never got a response. the permit the asked us to finally pay for it. that is what we did. we could not get any response from the appellant. >> why am i under the impression i have seen pictures of other people having a vantage point of this patio? >> that is correct. there are seven different decks that looked down into the appellant and property. literally every property has decks looking down into thethers looking down into their backyard. harris is -- this one is no different. it was scrutinized several times, and a building inspector
10:14 am
who measured its and confirmed it was 20 feet off the property line, so we took it to a much higher level, documented everything, and would love to comply to get them some more privacy in their backyard, but you are correct but the adjoining properties to look down into the backyard. >> thank you. . >> just to clarify after the last hearing, we notice a discrepancy between the permits of the jurisdiction request subjects and the permit that is on appeal, and there is a discrepancy of the rear yard dimensions given. the rear yard would be
10:15 am
required, and that is important, because of the death were to extend, and this roof deck were located above the portion in the required rearguard, it would have to have an open railing, so it is verified it does have a code compliant rear yard. i spoke to the reviewer, and we were satisfied both are code- complying and the scope of that having been exceeded. i will be available for any questions. >> if we were to grant of jurisdiction, what greater scrutiny would is received? what is in the original permit that is not in the other permanent? >> i am not aware of any differences.
10:16 am
the only reason the revision would not be required is if they were to reduce the scope and go back to the size of the originally approved deck. they may still require an improvement to document those changes, and i think another permit is going to be required no matter what. i do not think there is anything greater gains other than potentially delaying the hearing dates from december. >> to graft jurisdiction on this would be redundant? >> it would appear so. >> you are indicating the size of this deck is code compliant? >> that is correct. >> a permit was succeeded, so as a matter of policy, should we
10:17 am
make this easier for the permit holder? >> we do not like to seize those of permit exceeded any way -- do not like to see the scope of a permit exceeded in any way. i believe his is now nine times for the permit and six times its work exceed scope, we would not looking to the. >> in the same way this might be a redundant given the way there is a jurisdiction curio -- there is a jurisdiction, assuming they could both be heard on the same day. >> yes. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to correctsomethin.
10:18 am
it is to terms -- two times if we issued violation. it is not always a notice of violation, so i would be available for any questions. >> how would you construct a deck like this and screen it? >> we see a lot of screaming on roof decks, but the only requirement would be a 42-inch guard rail. the screening is not required by the building code. >> i imagined it is to protect neighbors properties. they have suggested it was deceitful on the part of the project sponsor to have put it
10:19 am
behind a message screen. >> i would not see it as being deceitful. was it some kind of temporary screen bowman's -- of temporary screen? i would not call it deceitful. people like screens around roof decks for obvious reasons. >> is there any public comment on this item up? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, we have heard our case. git is what we would normally looking for a jurisdiction request, and i would have thought it would be a reasonable
10:20 am
compromise. going back to the jurisdiction request, the case still has not been made but there were issues of a non-due process to the appellants with respect to the permanence -- permits. >> i would agree, and i would think the requester still has some due process left and would be able sooto deal with what evr issues they have, so i would be of a mind to not grant of jurisdiction. >> i would respectfully disagree. i know that renting the jurisdiction request might be redundant, but there are some factors that did not seem right
10:21 am
to me. clearly it was not taken down for privacy. we have no evidence there was a notice of violation surrounded penalties for exceeding the scope of the permit, so i think in light of those circumstances, and there was really only zero month missing from the appeal -- only a month missing from the appeal period, i would be very likely to grant it. >> i would make a motion to grant of jurisdiction request. >> if you could call roll please. >> on that motion from the president to grant of
10:22 am
jurisdiction request. commissioner fung: no. president gohpeterson: aye. >> this jurisdiction request would be denied. but we will move on to item number five, which is appeal 11-018, jason bley verses the zoning administrator. this is an appeal for the amended request for release of suspension addressed to the director which requests that the suspension delisted because the
10:23 am
property it -- be lifted because the property owner has worked to clarify the proposed improvements under these permits. yet on march 23, the matter was continued to allow time for the parties to meet with zoning administrators to see if an agreement could be met and if they trade estimate of list for all permits associated with the property and -- if they could submit on the scope for all who work permits associated with the property. >> i learned moments ago that they will present you with the various versions of the agreements that have gone back and forth between when we were here last and now, and the only commentary i would like to offer is that in spirit we have agreed upon a way in which the facade
10:24 am
has been restored, and that is essentially falling in line with the hearings that have been here, which is to put off to a future single project that restoration separating the front work from interior work, haas hs been the goal for the decisions made here. where we are having some difficulty and where we need your assistance is in lifting the onus of responsibility to oversee and and force this matter from jason as an individual, who has been conducting this of the matter of public interest. i do not have unlimited funds and which i can peirce 0 -- which i can pursue. each of these agreements has a
10:25 am
way by which the future project, the problem is enforcement, so we need a first agreement to reagan won agreements the fault is it leaves the ability for this to be unilaterally and which drawn from the zoning administrator, which is not satisfactory, because it is something that happens behind scenes and without input. while it has been related to me that i could appeal about, 12 years into that, i do not think a satisfactory resolution is to postpone this to a future date. some kind of realistic decision making should be agreed upon in
10:26 am
the present. the other agreement is that it leaves the responsibility on jason bley as an individual. i do not have unlimited funds to go to court and so on, and as this is in public interest, we need your assistance in crafting some what of the unique resolution here, and i thank you very much, commissioners. >> i have some questions. i did not follow what you were saying about how the unilateral withdrawal power in woodland. -- power would land.
10:27 am
and >> the language was inserted with a notice of special restriction by the city, and the agreement essentially says if at some point, it gave the power to remove at and restrictions to the zoning administrator. it did not say to any other party, and to every other experts i consulted with, that is giving up the power of one individual, and while i could appeal it, it would be bringing it back at a future date and leaving it where we left off. time is precious. life is short, and don't we have better things to do? >> basically, we have an agreement, and the question is how will it be recorded. >> how did the responsibility
10:28 am
get taken from jason as an individual? >> if it is not in an nsr, what is your suggestion as to how it should be? >> one of them is an nsr, but it is a private nsr. the same language is there, but the problem is it puts it all on me, so i've vigor and the way to flush out intention -- i figured a way to flesh out the agreement would be to add two sentences, that if i incurred in its legal fees on an attempt to undo this agreement, the other side would not pay his legal fees, so that is a simple way of saying, is
10:29 am
this an agreement, or is it not, because i can tell you i do not want to sue anybody. this has been a long and drawn- out process, and by putting that in there, that says to people in tend to abide by this? >> we can hear from the permit holder in now. >> i am representing the sponsor. may i present copies of the agreement? >> could you describe what it is? we need a motion, and we need to vote to accept it.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on