tv [untitled] August 21, 2013 7:30pm-8:01pm PDT
floor, to the red line at that exterior wall is what dimension? >> it would be six foot two inches. >> okay. thank you. 6 foot 2 inches. >> okay, miss barclay. >> good evening members of the commission. the problem with the appellant calculation is that they totally ignored section 102.12 c of the planning code which defines height. what it says is the height limit as you start in this case we start with the legislative setback which would go up 30 feet and the 45 degree and up, but then this
particular section set that in every other cross section of the building a right angle to the center line of building set such point shall be taken of the average of the ground elevation of either side of the building of building steps at the cross section. the reason is because a slope that is not necessary and in fact they usually do not go on a straight line by connecting the point in front that they had and then got to the property line, the center line and connect it. what the code section said is that you have to take at the critical point of the building especially in addition on both sides and establish that at that point of the cross section. so in this case, the
instruction by the planning department is correct. and that is at the point of the front of the new floor. you have to calculate the height limit there by taking that point on both sides of the building at the ground level, then average it to come up with that point and then move backward the next critical point is anyone at the roof line here where it is to make sure the top of the roof does not exceed the 35 feet as you go all the way back down to the ground at the center line of the building. then, move back to the rear of that addition and then the rear of the existing building. that's how the slope is calculated and is not a straight line, but it
moves up at different angles. >> what do you have for that dimension on that exterior wall from the third floor? it is at that point it is 222.68, san francisco data. everything is done by san francisco data. >> i understand that. i heard that. my point is from the first floor to the sealing -- ceiling line is what dimension? >> 7 foot. let me look for the bigger drawing. it is 7, 3 1/2
inch. because it's at a slope, because you are talking about the minimum height under the building code. >> okay, mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott san she was planning department. as it was noted at the last hearing there were some inaccuracies by the appellant and i appreciate the board going back to view the accurate height requirements.
they did a new survey and noted this is a project that has been around for several years and i think some of these inconsistencies in the plans maybe accounted for i think had different architect the last time of the board of appeals. they have revised the plan and submitted those to the board and those we believe the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans if the board feels that is appropriate. the revisions do not have a different project, they just have more accurate dimension. it has very clear depiction on how the measurement is under the planning code and we have determined that it does comply with the provisions for height. i know that one cannot obtain a variance for height, it's never been allowed in the san francisco planning code. but that is something that cannot be done. we have received this
and found that it complies with the height. the definition of height does define how you measure for an unsloping lot. you do it per final grade. you don't do it towards the front and the back and run a straight line. it's based upon the cross section. when it talks about average in a definition of height, it's talking about average of the two sides of the building of the groundel elevation and that's at the point from the height. it can be more challenging to determine what the heights of native grade is on either side of the building when your built lot line to lot line. in this case it's an rf 1st district to catch on the side yard and they were able to take those from existing grade which is what
the definition of height specifies that you do for determining height. so we do believe that they have correctly measured height for this project and respectfully request the board actually in this case grant the appeal but approve the project for the revised plan. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay, seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, this is probably the 5th meeting that we've had on this case. i think it's time to put closure to it for our both sides. i'm prepared to accept the planning department's confirmation of
the building height, unlike the very first project that was no variance required into the setback. and at this point, i think i'm ready to approve the permit with the conditions as proposed by the zoning administrator. >> sorry to interrupt, scott sanchez, this has been revised. a variance is still required which this board upheld at the previous hearing some time ago. but a portion does require a variance. >> okay. >> i would concur with comments of commissioner fung. if there are no other comments i will make the motion to grant the appeal on the condition that it be the revised drawings be the ones that are permitted. >> can we have some specificity
on the drawings? >> for the record they are dated, they are in the permit holder august 14th submittal but the july plans are dated 20, 136789 we have an motion from the president to uphold the revised plan july 26, 2013. >> on that motion to uphold with revised plans, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, aye, lazarus, aye, honda? aye. the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld with revised plans. >> what were the dates of those plans? >> july 22nd.
we are calling item no. 9. item 9: appeal no. 13-057 david & niloufer king, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 4162 & 4164 26th street. protesting the issuance on may 08, 2013, to tony szeto & annie kong, permit to alter a building 3rd story vertical addition and onestory horizontal addition, interior remodel, structural upgrade, plumbing and electrical workk. application no. 2012/06/19/2903s. for hearing today.sf 91234 this is on for hearing today and we'll hear from the appellant. >> good evening, this concerns a remodel of victorian house in millie valley. the three identical once -- ones in a row. the remodel is for three. my wife and i have lived in the east one for 33 years. the middle was purchased by the
applicant for 3 years. they live in hillsborough and bought it as an investment property. they propose to excavate the ground level. they want to add a partial fourth floor to the building as well. both additions have decks. the plans were approved in may this year for the 2 units but occupancy of the building increase from 4 to about 10 people. the reason for our permit appeal is that we were denied the opportunity to voice our concerns officially from the start. a week after posting the notice of the permit application, we voiced very strongly our objections to the project with
the 30-day limit for meetings. we had two meetings. we did not meet mutually acceptable solutions. we were informed by the project architect that he was arranging an extension of the 30-day period to solve our problems. he is a very respected architect with very detailed experience in san francisco and we sought no reason to doubt his word that we could extend the 30-day period. the 30 days expired, we were informed by doug in planning that the extensions are not permitted after this stage during the permit application process. we were sort of shocked to hear the news. we didn't have any opportunity to officially express our concerns, hence
this appeal. we have two concerns: one is the extension out to the back, one is the extension up. concern one, the extension of the ground floor 12 feet out into the yard even if it's setback off the property line 3 feet results in what amounts to kind of a hundred plus square footwall right next to our house. there are two consequences: this is to our west. it would block a great deal of our light and reach the ground floor of our house and cast a permanent shadow on the living quarters of our ground floor which we very recently rebuilt completely to great expense. this extension out would box us in. second consequence: it would also i am -- on the
mid-block. it's one of the reasons why the valley is such an unusual and pleasant place to live. our concern no. 2 is the extension up with the partial 4th floor with the rear deck. and the firewall all of this taking place in front of our house would block light and essentially all the visible sky facing the north wibd -- window that is the sole source of light. the house is basically three rooms. there is top floors. all we would see is a wall 3 feet away. in addition
i think this fourth floor on top of the middle of a row of three identical victorians would interrupt the visual rhythm as seen from across the street and three of the neighbors across the street immediately across the street agree with this. as a resolution of our concerns, the extension out, the compromise we proposed at our first meeting was drawing a line between the corner of our house and the corner of the third victorian which is already sticking out 12 feet and hoping we could restrict their extension behind this line. this resolution has been rejected by the remodel project. the resolution for the extension up, we met 5 weeks
ago to discuss our objections and resolution. owners came by our house afterwards to see it from our point of view. the architect said he would but never did and we haven't heard a word since. afterwards they issued a rebuttal to our appeal and item 1 it states how often they attempted to address our concerns starting with a community outreach meeting which we unfortunately never heard about so we didn't attend. but we did have several meetings, e-mails, phone call, visits, but they haven't resulted in any proposals to resolve the issues. the rebuttal also states how they have altered their plans to
accommodate us. the first alteration was to reduce expansion from 12 feet to 11 feet. and then back to 12 feet, but setback 3 feet from the property line. these are in the right direction but hardly compromises. they are relatively insignificant. the rebuttal also includes nine pages of signatures of peopling supporting their remodel. it's a big list. there is 61 signatures, 7 are on the block that concerns us. not one of the signers has a direct view. 4 live four blocks away. missing from this list are the people not affected by this remodel. >> your type is up. but you
will have time on rebuttal. >> i have one more paragraph. >> we can hear from the project sponsor now. >> good evening. i'm annie kong, i'm the project sponsor. we have tried to start to remodel and move in. we have worked with our neighbors in good faith to try to come up with a resolution. unfortunately, we could not resolve this matter. we even setback, actually plan got
approved by the planning department and on our own good faith we setback the property to accommodate our neighbor. i went out to the neighborhood and i talked to many neighborhoods and showed them the plan and consolidate what we tried to do. all the neighbors, actually people that signed, approved the plans. i'm asking for you to help me move this project on because it has been a year 1/2. i would like to move in, i would like to have my parents there on the lower level and my children are graduating and they can live on the upper level. i hope the commissioner and the appeal board, that you will uphold the permit and move
forward on this project. >> it's very difficult for us to know the full context of appellant and your own designs, but we don't have any drawings. all we have is a site plan, small scale that doesn't show us anything. we have no elevation, no section, no floor plan to see what is exactly you two are arguing about. >> my architect is here. he can help out in those aspects. >> good evening. i'm the architect. let me put up for you the site plans to reiterate a couple of keypoints. the first is this which is the
existing condition of these properties. you can see it there. the neighbors to the west does have a one story 12 foot expansion into rear yard with the planning code in section 126 and there was a stair existing at the subject property that already confined some of the view and the light and air to the down stair portions of the appellants property. then we have this site plan as it was originally approved by the city planning department with an expansion into the rear yard with eastern wall along the property line as is consistent on this pattern on this block and finally you have an a site plan on the
property as it was revised with a setback on the property line. in terms of the elevations, there was no complaint voiced about the vertical addition to the project prior to the filing of the appeal. up to that time we had not heard about that complaint other than the rear yard and everybody can verify we made a good effort to comply. and this partial third floor addition is setback 15 feet from the front of the property that is consistent with what the planning department asks us to preserve the historic integrity of the block and the context. this
west side elevation gives you a good sense of where that expansion sits relative to the front and the back of the house and the dotted line there above the proposed expansion demonstrates the height limit relative to the grade. i can answer additional questions. i want to make another couple small points that i do think are important. these are family housing and they are modest size houses. 2187 square feet. we are doing everything in context with the neighbors with the historic integrity of the houses and with the desire to create high quality family housing and do doing our best to accommodate everyone. thank you for your consideration. >> go ahead.
>> okay. well, if i understand it, i want to focus on the rear yard expansion. if i understand it the appellant is taking the average between the property line and extension to the house on the east. why would that not be acceptable? >> the lines that have been discussed are first off a line has been struck from the appellant's northwestern corner of their lot through the northeastern corner of the subject property neglecting the original stairs that were there. so that defines a line that is more strict and it creates a triangle at the back of the lot and that triangle is a very difficult space to create habitable rooms out of. that is difficult in arriving
at a compromise. we came up with a series of step angles and even if we accepted that line is questionable and the other line being the line taken from the corner of the appellant's property to a line of 12 feet into the rear yard along the east property line which is the limit of what the planning code -- allows us. that is a compromise and that was something that everyone agreed about the geometry. but we couldn't agree about the room size itself. we went ahead and submitted a revision that nearly accomplished that geometry, but apparently that is still not acceptable. >> a question, you met with the kings? >> yes, sir. >> at that time did you tell
them you were doing an extension of the plans? >> i told them i would make an effort to gain more time. as i have been allowed to do in the past and i did call my planner, doug boo who is assigned to this case. he did not return my call. he was out of the office. >> did you get back to the kings after he did not return your call? >> i don't recall. it is true that i told them i would try to gain an extension. i certainly did not call them and tell them not to exercise their rights. >> all right. thank you. >> okay, thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez planning department, the property is within our zone district. the
property includes a horizontal addition to the building. the building application was submitted on june 19, 2012, and went through notification from august 2012 and september of 2012, there are no discretionary reviews filed as noted made it pop out at the rear slightly smaller and we reviewed an approved that early whier this year. the permit was subsequently issued and an appealed to this board. the board does require with the planning code section 126 c 125. that pop out can be 12 feet into the rear yard, no higher than 10 feet to the roof of that structure. and it can be the full width of the lot or you can set it back 5 feet from each of the side property lines and go to 2 stories. what they are doing is the smaller
version, the shorter version which they can go to the full lot with the revision to move it away from the side property line is something they did, not a requirement of the department, they did it voluntarily, apparently that was not sufficient to resolve the issues related to this appeal. the department does support the project as proposed. i'm available for any questions. in regards to the section 311 neighborhood notification, it does advise members of the public who receive that notice to contact the applicant or the department staff to ask any questions and any discretionary reviews must be filed within the 30-day window. i have never extended a section 311 notice for any reason unless there was a defect in the code. if someone said i want more time with my
neighbor to negotiate. i tell them to file a discretionary review and if the matter with negotiated, it is withdrawn and we refund them. the code says 30 days and it's not a matter forbidding. we do have to stick to that 30-day deadline and it's only extended if the notice was damaged in one shape or form. that is not to my knowledge. this is the de novo hearing and the board has the ability to take any action it deems appropriate. i'm available for any question. >> the staff did they have any comments on the design and scope? >> staff review it and one of the concerns was the age of the building and looking at the trio of wulg of the buildings, the things we are looking at the front, the amount setback
from the front building wall, what we expect in a situation like this, it's also there is a front setback of the building itself, i think it's a little bit less than 10 feet. it sets back in the front of the property line. i would say in regards to the rear addition, that is pretty standard to this encroachment is similar to the one to the west. this is very similar to what is being proposed there. i would say that in looking at aerial photography of the subject property and the block, it's not a clear cut mid-block open space issue. i think in some cases you see those which are much more well-defined and if the overhead will tolerate the ipad, thank you, it looks pretty good today. thank you. so the subject property has a little red pen here. there are significant extensions on other properties here.