tv Planning Commission 22516 SFGTV February 26, 2016 8:00pm-10:01pm PST
address that for the after all depth of the deck thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening commission jooifd the building permit under appeal is a new deck at rear with two new french doors and bathroom on the 3-r it is approved over-the-counter reviewed by the planning and the mechanism sound check for the puc when reviewing the page and discussing one of the things that could be problematic on the permit is falls under charter 12 of the san francisco planning code a new bedroom and that will be regarded as habitual room in
section 1204 for latin-american in san francisco building code the department of all structures including the decks shall not steady 9 feet when step up to the plate offer interiexterior for natural light or ventilation with occupancy so really can't go further 9 feet because not enough of light it used to be 7 feet i thought that was 7 they changes it and so this is something that we need to take into consideration and it obviously got missed in the building approval of the plans at dbi i wanted to bring that up otherwise i'm available to answer any questions. >> when did that code change in 7 to 9 a when did that
change. >> from the 2010 code this is the code official in 2013 would have been 7 feet prior to that i remember that code section and commissioner vice president fung reminded me of that it is now 9 feet. >> okay. thank you. >> . >> pbany public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant 3 minutes. >> if i could have the i'm going to talk again about the height of the deck. this fence is 76 inches. this doesn't do it justice. if you add 42 inches to the
8-foot height of the deck, so 11 1/2 feet, that's 76 inches 4 inches th is that much higher this tape measures extends to 10 foot are the further out that comes the more the bigger the impact they say that debbie already has a privacy impact from that view from dublin i emphasis that view is not available from dublin you have to stand at the fence and point a camera offer the fence anyone that walks by over the sidewa walk will not have that view the attorney said i'm not impacted the greenery shields it that's not true you can see that that is the approximate size as the
deck if so it the same as the deck dublin that meshes what is the neighborhood now i mean what i saw when i read the rules committee over and over the emphasis on harm in any it stands out six feet we don't want a deck falling at all if you it want a deck that will not have the impact think our privacy and mesh workplaell wit is in the neighborhood will not building inspection commission i read on page 26 of the residential guidelines the building expansions the rear yard may not be appropriate if their uncharacteristic feet tall if that fence he showed you was 76 inches and the deck to 11 and a half feet how is that no uncatalyst it haracteristic it f
you have an additional height that is nearly as large as a purpose looming over you how does that not make you feel boxed the shorter the deck the better as far as i'm concerned. >> they say they'll look at open space the back of the deck is a wood fence it is extremely high so i would predict our support. >> may i ask you a question i heard you have trust issues wrowith the neighbors but have you had any discussions any conversations together will or
about modifying the deck a so we don't have to do that for you. >> not since the kitchen conference he sent an e-mail later that morning summarizing the conversation he assume you'll check with laura the more time that went by the brief the more time without a response and then when we sent a response i'm sorry we don't trust him that's that simple we assumed they were trying to installing stall us i 240u9 that would be a mistake basically the last conversation
i'm going to talk about the height of the deck. this is 76 inches. this fence doesn't do it justice. if you add 42 inches to the 8-foot height of the deck, it's 11 1/2 feet. that's 76 inches. that's six 6-foot 4 inches of room that much higher. it's accurate. this tape measure at the bottom extends to 10 feet. the farther out it comes, the more the bigger the impact is. now, they say that debbie already has a privacy impact from that view from doubling. again i emphasize that view is not
from doubling. you have to use a camera on the fence. anybody on the sidewalk is not going to have that view. the attorney said that i'm not impacted. that the greenery that i have shield it. well, that's not true. you can see that in this short. that shows the approximate size of the deck. if that's the same size with dublin, that will be met with what's in the neighborhood now. what i saw when i read the residential guidelines over and over again is an emphasis on harmony. this extends about 5 feet. we don't want any kind of a deck at all. if you are going to have a deck of this size would not have that impact on our privacy and would mesh well with what's in the neighborhood would not box it in the same way. i read on page 26 of the
residential design guidelines even when permitted by the planning code building expansion in the rear yard may not be appropriate if they are uncharacteristically deep or tall. if i showed it it's 76 inches tall and the deck is 11 1/2 feet. how would that not be, it's huge. it can leave residents feeling boxed in or cutoff from open space. if you have this looming over you, how does it not make you feel boxed in? the shorter the deck is, the better if we have to have a deck at all. >> they said they would have open space, right in the back of the deck far back is nothing but a
wood fence which is extremely high. so, i just would appreciate support. >> may i ask you a question, please? >> yes. >> i heard that you had trust issues with your neighbors, but regardless of that, have you had any discussions, any conversations together about modifying the deck and coming to a conclusion so that we don't have to come to a conclusion for you? >> not since the kitchen conference. i sent an e-mail later that morning summarizing the conversation we had with them. i assume he's going to check with laura. i have exhibits related to this in the brief. the more time without a response and when he did send a response, i'm sorry, we do not trust him. it's that simple. we assume they were trying to stall us and not have time
to prepare the brief. the last conversation we had was in the kitchen. >> can you remind me of what your interpretation of that negotiation was as to what the depth of the deck would have been? >> it's 4-foot deep. not much wider than the french doors which are the current width. and if there are going to be stairs, they are going on centered and not on debbie's side and not on my side. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> i apologize, i have one question. mr. adams, you heard from the zoning administrators as well as the zoning inspector of the building department that it could now no longer
go more than 9 feet? >> yes. >> does it make you any happier at this point? >> i took out a conversation. anything above 4 feet starts to have a privacy impact. if it meshes with the deck, with dublin, that's 5 feet. >> thank you. that was the question. >> we can hear from the permit holder now for rebuttal. >> i just wanted to clarify a couple points. appellant referenced with the railing the deck would rise over 11 1/2 feet and show the image that he had also which had a 42-inch rail which is required and that's not going to be a solid. so it would be very aligned with the image he had in terms of the height. it's going to matchup
obviously to the door to the deck and what the bottom would be. in view from the sidewalk on dublin, there is also that deck on dublin that he's been showing. if i can have the overhead for a minute. so, that deck also overlooks the same backwards so there is the same privacy interest with that deck. i can't tell the size of that deck. it doesn't necessarily seem to be only 5 feet to me. i don't think we know for sure, but obviously he's cherry picking this deck. on the other side there are much larger decks. if there are no more questions, i would be good with that. >> did you consider video screens at the end of your deck? >> on the sides? >> yeah. i think the permit holders
would be fine with that. >> they would actually want that. we also want privacy as well. >> thank you. anything else from the department? any questions? seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> the size of the deck is a little troublesome to me. and the reason is this not necessarily the appellants concerns. i respect their concerns of privacy, but i'm looking at it from what planning when they review it.
there is also an element of scale. you know the relationship of the scale of the deck to the rear yard to these buildings and i know when i first saw it, the 12 1/2 feet, i thought this was way out of scale. you know, i'm not sure whatever happened because most of the times i walk to my rear yard, i have coffee. the under side is going to be perpetually in shadow. from a planning point of view, i find the scale, the proportions of open space to deck to the house to be disturbing. you know? >> i also agree.
as you heard in the beginning of the case when the planning department presented or gave a presentation that was a question that commissioners asked. although it's deck, it's open space, life styles have changed, our weather patterns have changed. people are out there more often. commissioner fung mentioned in the past that he's considered this almost usable space of the property. look ing at the picture when i first read it, it seemed like it was looming over the rear of the properties. that's my opinion. >> i believe that we had a case, i will go to my junior commissioner fung because he remembers
everything. about 6 months ago we had a similar one in the district. there was a very large deck and you had similar concerns and you rightly so and we agreed with you to reduce the depth of that deck to a more in scale. i think it was 6 feet. i don't want my memory to serve me when you were the one who made the observation. but i'm in agreement with you all and i just want to remind you that i believe, i always like to be consistent with what we've done in the past. i think we ask at that point for a reduction of the size of that deck to a more reasonable and in scale level. i believe it was 6 feet. >> i would go with what the previous building was with seven.
i know gary, it was gary, right? >> right. exactly. >> do you want do make a motion? >> no. i'm bad at it. >> i understand that we want -- >> programatically, if they want -- >> wait a minute. i'm talking. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> now i forgot what i was going to say. i know we want to do things to scale, but i also want to respect the people should have a right to do with their property as long as -- i also appreciate that you want to
try to live together. but the folks, they are in compliance. the rules are a little bizarre. and i think i agree with you that it's out of scale, but i don't want to make it so small that it feels to me to be punitive. they haven't done anything wrong here. i don't want to be. >> do you want them to have some time to figure it out. >> i didn't mean necessarily tonight. >> actually, commissioner, wilson, i was trying to offer something. >> okay. >> necessary -- in the sense if you look at the program that they would have a small table out there that they can sit around. if you look at a small table for a coffee cup or some snack or food and a grill, you are talking
about the 6-7 feet range. that's enough. >> seven at least. >> so knowing how they have been reacting to each other, i would probably recommend that if they put some type of lattice at the end of the deck 5-6 feet high to protect each other's privacy. >> who does that? >> i don't think it looks to scale as we are shown by both permit
holder as well as -- >> i don't think any of us are in disagreement about the scale. we are just trying to figure out -- >> go ahead and make a motion. >> chair, c'mon up. we are going to be here till midnight anyway. just give me a break. >> i would say that i think the prior code it sounds like was 7 and now 9. i would go with 8 to compromise. as is for the stairs, they are going to take a good portion of the
deck and obviously seating, table and chairs, require some room. my personal view that the guidelines and the code already considered proportionality. >> you don't get to argue again. >> okay, i'm willing to compromise. >> thank you. >> i think the appellant also gets to talk. >> it is probably better for you to decide at this point because debbie and i wanted to be as sure as possible and they wanted to be bigger to accommodate the stairs. again, when i want to go into my backyard and that has the fence. the farther it is, the
better for the privacy impact. we like 5 feet better than 6 feet. it's late. i don't have anything else to say. they bought the home in august. debbie has been in the neighborhood for over 50 years. >> thank you. >> i will make a motion. move to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the basis that the deck be reduced to 7 feet. that the circular stair be centered in the deck and that a lattice be applied at the ends of the deck for a height of 5 feet. >> okay. >> before you made the
me. >> okay. so that motion by vice-president fung to grant the permit and that the circular stair be centered in the deck and lattice of 5 feet be applied to the side of the deck. this is on the bases of -- >> hopefully neighborhood tranquility. >> on the basis that it may promote neighborhood tranquility. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> all right, commissioners. on the language there do you want to say something about the stairs, plus the stairs or something. >> plus the stairs. >> i don't know if you want to put that in because it's 7 feet plus the
width of the stairway, right? >> right. that's what you just said, right? >> we are going to add to that reducing the depth to 7 feet excluding the stairs. is that correct? okay. we are calling that motion again, commissioner lazarus, honda, commissioner fung, commissioner whoo-hoo. >> and we are -- going to a front setback and unscreened parking variances. to include 1 off street parking space
what we are asking for is over turn the variance decision. we believe our project is ultimately the long process created understand the code is there, create the function for compliance or review. i think the bigger reasons are that we have a path forward to create parking, but we feel that path forward to the curve may also be destructive to our property and benefits the neighborhoods and will benefit us and also is better for the neighborhood. it's better
>> i don't think we should take that as an issue as to what evidence is provided in a court of law. the stumble block for me is a question of substantial evidence. substituting a potential alternative as suggested by the appellant and some of the speakers to three poles that are in the neighborhood is not necessarily a solution given the fact that maybe other neighbors who don't live at 1801 fulton may not want it in front of their house.
the issue of what is intrusive is always subjective. we have had people that just argue forever at multiple times on a pole that is not necessarily in front of their house but up the street from their house. we've had those kind of presentations here. >> yeah. nobody wants it in their backyard. >> that's exactly what's being said. and as i indicated earlier, the vast majority of people who appeal these cases in front of us are always raising that the preferred alternative would be to put on a private site versus on a pole. >> here we are on a private site. >> here we are on a private site and the possible is to put it on
an alternative pole. i would not be able to put together substantial evidence related to a denial for this permit. >> so, i see i'm fighting a losing battle here, but i will make a statement anyway. unlike my fellow commissioners here now, you did have the fun and enjoyment of going through hundreds and hundreds of cases with at & t, and next ge and other companies and because of those cases, our hands were tied and legislation was made directly towards us and i keep hearing how safe these are and how protective these are. up until recently johnson
and johnson baby powder has been used for many years as well. you know, my position is if someone wants to make a motion, go for it. >> move to deny the appeal. uphold the permit on the basis that there is not substantial evidence to deny it. >> so we have a motion by vice-president fung to deny the appeal and uphold that there is not substantial evidence to deny it. on that motion, commissioner lazarus is absent, president honda? >> no. >> commissioner wilson? >> yes. >> commissioner? aye. >> that motion does carry with a vote of 3- 0. i know it's very late,
before we adjourn the meeting tonight, i want to note that. >> that i forgot to say, thank you very much, robert. it's been a pleasure to work with you. sadly to see you go away. you brought us this wonderful luck this last evening. >> thank you all for that. >> thank you very much, mr. brian. >> i want to just echo that. it's been a pleasure to work with robert. he's been extremely supportive to me and i know with the board and thoughtful and generous with his time. it's extremely appreciated. [ applause ] >> you did say 3- 1. my apologies.
>> shop and dine the 49 challenges residents to do they're shopping with the 49ers of san francisco by supporting the services within the feigned we help san francisco remain unique and successful and rib rant where will you shop the shop and dine the 49 i'm e jonl i provide sweets square feet potpie and peach cobbler and i
started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients and quality products and need to
be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. whome to the regular meeting of the thursday, february 25, thursday, february 25, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take the opportunity to let members of the public know that if you received a large number of speakers for items 1 ab the affordable housing bonus plan that item is not going to be heard until 3:30 p.m. if you're here you'll be sitting for some. at