tv [untitled] January 20, 2012 11:31pm-12:01am PST
45%, and then we would use the averaging. >> they could use the averaging if they wished to go deeper than the 45%. most people would choose to do that. commissioner antonini: a question for the d.r. requesters. i need some clarification on this solar panel. when you were presenting it, you said one solar panel. >> and the drawings we saw, it appears there was only one solar panel. it look like there were four and one that would stick up and blocked a lot on the north side. on the drawing, it appeared to be one solar panels. commissioner antonini: the one that is closest to you? >> exactly. i am not an architect, but that is the way it looked to me. it is not a whole series of them, just one. commissioner antonini: i might make a suggestion, i would take
d.r., such as removal of the solar panel closest to the request for -- requesters, and provide a champer not to exceed 3 feet on the edge of the requesters. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i'm not particularly enamored with this addition. you look at the existing building, it has some -- it's not historic resource under the way we've analyzed it here in the department. but besides that, it does have some character to it. and now we have this square rectangular addition. and it just seems to me that if
you take into consideration the whole building, that the department could perhaps work a little bit more with the architect on a slight redesign of the addition itself. and it just really jarring to me. so that's partially the reason i seconded the motion. commissioner antonini: and i would accept that as part of my motion, to work with staff to try to do something in the back to make it look somewhat more graceful like the addition in the back is now than to be more squared and boxy, whether they pitch the roofs or whatever they do. they would also help the lighting issue, too. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i don't support the motion. i actually don't think moving a
solar panel is the solution. i think it's a pretty modest addition overall. so i would not be supportive of that. i think i'm fine if you want to direct staff to continue to work with project sponsor. that's fine with me. but as far as moving a solar panel, i don't support that. president miguel: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: well, i'm somewhere in between those comments. maybe to move to continue is maybe the right direction. it's a beautiful home. and you've got these great ridged roofs and maybe to continue some of that character with the design of the front of the house, and then appease your neighbors in getting some additional light. you have these windows in the back. maybe there's a little bit of play with that to get the light in there. i would not recommend -- and i don't want to play architect, but i wouldn't recommend removal of the solar panels.
we like that idea. we want to encourage that. but i soon want to have that blend into the actual design of the roof line as best as possible. so looks like commissioner moore's got comments. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i actually called staff and talked about the addition, and i don't care for thed a -- for the addition, to be very honest. however, as the staff took me through it, he did explain to me very carefully that this building is confined, and as to whether or not i like it or not, that is at this particular juncture not the issue. there are things as an architect that will do very good for me. the only question we have is why didn't staff help a little bit more because of the location, and i'm linking into commissioner sugaya's comment that this building is a historic resource. it is a resource in the wider
interpretation of resource. and while the resource has to be looking con textual and a resource to the front, to the back it doesn't matter. and to me the back matters as well because the adjoining buildings are buildings which express themselves the same way from the front as well as from the back. that is my own standard, but that doesn't weigh much. so having said that, i would be comfortable supporting a continuance and get a little bit more work out of this building. president miguel: i have to comment that the developer's comment basically justifying the more modern appearance at the rear because there's a modern kitchen, award-winning or not. the interior has been modernized.
no relatives. there's many ultra modern interior in an historic home. so there's no relevance between the two in my mind. and i would not support the elimination of the solar panels. i don't want to get into the whole thing of solar panelists as far as removing them. but i do think there's more work that can be done on this and i would support a continuance as well. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would like to withdraw my motion with the permission of the seconder and make a motion to continue to mid february, late february. does that sound reasonable to project sponsor? >> well, i guess you would need to ask the project sponsor how much time we need to address -- commissioner antonini: project sponsor, can we look at the last week in february? or do you want to go into march? because you'd have to be doing some redesign to make it more
con textual. let's go sometime in march. maybe mid march. >> let me get a calendar. >> you can go mid march? >> the idse of march. march 15. commissioner antonini: that's my motion to continue. maybe other commissioners can weigh in. >> i think it's a good idea to let them know what you want them to do by march 15. commissioner antonini: ok. is there a second to my continuance? commissioner moore: there is a second, yeah. commissioner antonini: what i have in my mind, i think what i've heard from other commissioners is to try to look at your design for the back to make the appearance be more in keeping with the other houses in
the neighborhood and the existing home, and at the same time, perhaps by doing this, you may as a by-product allow more light into the d.r. requesters just by the pitching of a roof or something like that, whether or not a sham first taken out -- there was some direction, but that was something that would have to be worked on. and those are the elements that i'm hearing the most from the other commissioners and also what they have to say. but that's what we'd like to see when it comes back to us in march. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i defer to the creativity and the listening ability of the architect to just understand what is of concern to us, including some smaller elements as expressed by your neighbors. but what i think i like you to feel good about is there is a full support for the owners to have an expansion to their building, that the burden will
rely on you to describe it in a slightly more persuasive way than what's in front of us today. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, and i think there was an observation that the rear portion of a lot of buildings on this block are fairly square, reck tack you lar. so i'll give you that. but what i was speaking of is more in terms of the relationship of the addition to this existing house, which is quite different, i think, than the other residences on the block. and i think that's what commissioner antonini was getting at and i think that's what commissioner moore was trying to point out, too, that it's the character of the house that we're trying to respond to, not so much -- the other buildings are quite different, like i said. so it's this particular property that we're trying to relate the addition to. and i personally don't think
it's a difficult task to do. president miguel: and there was an inference of noncommunication. i don't want to go into that in any depth, but i don't want to hear that when you come back in march. >> the motion on the floor is for continuance to march 15 and you've given instructions to the project sponsor. and i'm going to assume that would include continuing to the department staff. president miguel: yes. >> on that motion, the public hearing will remain open to entertain any new proposals by the project sponsor. on that motion -- [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. this item has been continued to march 15. commissioners, you're now on item number 11, case number
2011.1151 d for 640 hayes street. president miguel: d.r. requester. excuse me, staff. trying to move it along. there we go. >> good evening again, commissioners. i'm david lindsay from department staff. i'll be presenting this discussion nare review request for a project at 642 hayes street, located between laguna and buchanan streets in hayes valley. before i begin, i should mention that earlier this week, mr. star, the planner assigned to this project, sent out to each of the commissioners a slightly amended report which included
the addition of a second name who appeared on the d.r. application. so if any of you require this document, i have a copy here. this project consists of several components, including the addition. a new dwell unit in the ground floor of this three-story, two-unit building, the restoration of a ground floor bay at the front of the building, legalization of the enclosure of what we call the void at the rear of the ground floor that's beneath the second story projection. the removal of exterior stairs along the east property line. the reduction in size of a second story deck along the east property line. and the addition of a fire wall where the deck abuts the east property line. as well as various interior alterations. according to the project sponsor, the subject building, which covers almost its entire
lot, was essentially gutted by a previous owner and a visit to the property confirmed that the building is currently in what we would term serious disrepair. the d.r. requester is mateo garbalatto, the adjacent neighbor to the west, although the d.r. request also references the adjacent neighbor to the east, lenny henson. the d.r. requester's concerns include various items, including the project sponsor submit tall of what the d.r. requester refers to as fraudulent drawings, the history of construction work being done without permit on the property, the enclosure of the void at the rear of the property, at the ground floor, and privacy impacts of the deck along the east property line and the new
windows. it is staff's position that it is with the residential guidelines. the d.r. requester's concerns are generally not related to the residential guidelines. staff believes that the project addresses and creggets a number of building and planning code violations, some of which date back five years or more. it is also staff's position that the plans as revised accurately reflect existing conditions at the site. staff's position is that although there has been a history of construction work without permit at this site, that the project itself does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, and in fact, the permit would allow many of the current conditions to be corrected. we recommend that the commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as revised.
president miguel: d.r. requester? >> chair miguel, commissioners, victor marquez. i'm usually on the other side of the equation representing developers after we've engaged in tremendous community outreach before we come before you. in this instance, however, i happen to be married to the owner, my husband, and i am representing him in the family. this warrants discretionary review. there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. and the staff's report -- i rarely disagree with staff. here i will respectfully disagree with staff. the report itself speaks to these exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to the effect that the project
sponsor obtained over the counter permits with no neighborhood notification. no resource evaluation, then proceeded to intentionally submit misleading and/or fraudulent, a tech chull drawings to obtain these permits and then proceeded to destroy a historical element of the structure. i reported him because we live on a lane that is truly a gem of a block. for those of you that are familiar with hayes valley, it's a very tight knit neighborhood. we have lived there. we bought in 1999 and have lived there since and plan to continue to live there. what's interesting, there's a couple of red herings, because when the project sponsor is referring to the previous owner doing the gutting, he's referring to his previous partner, his brother. so it's a little misleading, but
it makes it sound like it's someone that had nothing to do with him, they had a falling out and then he took over the project, and he told me that. also, some of the violations go back to five years, but some of the most egregious violations were done by this current project sponsor, namely, destroying the bay window under false pretenses, cutting a curve cut, which created a hassle for the community. so my position today is to request that you grant discretionary review as requested by the two applicants, and the purpose is really to provide oversight of the permit application, so that the project sponsor may comply with the drawings that have been submitted to planning. the drawings that have been
submitted are not what's there today, so it really is amazing. you're going to hear from the other two property owners. so the depiction of the drawings are not correct and will highlight some of those differences. so it's a little disconcerting that staff finds that there were minor when in fact there are a lot of major discrepancies. we are not opposing the project. in fact, we're supporting the project. the neighborhood wants to see the structure rehabilitated. it is important that it be rehabilitated. but i do think that discretionary review is important. i've come up with several conditions. i'm going to talk about our property line. the west elevation plans were not submitted in the drawings. there's a window there that was built illegally from day one when they built it illegally while i was out of the country. they didn't build it, but i've
been asking the last three owners to remove that window because it's a fire hazard. it's adjacent to our two-story wood deck. and should there be a fire, that means that our house goes down as well. secondly, the entire house was gutted. it was gutted by this plodge sponsor and -- project sponsor and his brother. i'm asking that you consider, since it's gutted and the outside of the illegal portion that was done years ago can easily be cut back so that they can provide a access to the fire department, whether it's three or four feet, to have the ability to do that because they're going to have to put all-new wood siding. condition number one is that the wood be removed and that the wood and siding be restored, that we have clarification, since they did not submit the elevation to the west. it's going to be all wood
siding. condition number five -- may i -- president miguel: you may be called up. >> i'll give up one minute in rebuttal. president miguel: not at this point. >> ok. i'll finish in rebuttal then. thank you, mr. chair. president miguel: speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm going to try to answer as many of your questions -- president miguel: you're the project sponsor, right? >> yes. president miguel: what i want first are speakers in favor of the discretionary review.
>> are you speaking for the d.r. requester? >> the power point is not coming up. >> it will come up. you just need to start. >> my name is lenny hanson -- >> could you speak into this microphone? >> my name is lenny hanson. i live and own 632634 hayes and i lived in that building and owned it since 2000. i have some very major concerns. one is that the deck, which is on the side which we're not seeing, number one, does not respect the footprint of the house. number two -- ok, sorry.
>> can someone run that for her? her time is running. >> two things. the deck does not respect the footprint of the house. number two, thelooks and was built by the owner of 642, the present owner of 642. also, the windows do not correspond to the plan that was submitted and there's a huge window and door, which overlooked my property directly. i would like all windows and doors please to be done with proper permits so that i know that things are being cone correctly. and i would like a huge picture window and door which overlooks my property, which does not respect the abatement to at least have frosted glass if it's allowed to permit. i'd like to point out that we three who are there are neighbors and we live in hayes valley and we sweep our streets, we sweep our sidewalks, we take care of our property, and we want a safe, respectable neighborhood that's good for everybody. thank you.
so in conclusion, remove the deck on the east side, which doesn't follow the building's footprint, does not respect the legal setback, and touches my property, and obtain proper permits for the modified openings. here's a picture of the footprint. here's where it touches my property on the east side. here is a deck and stair which were not existing as built as indicated on the plan. secondly, as i said, i'd like permit for the new and modified openings. you'll see that these have been opened recently. this overlooks my house directly. and i would like -- the windows are being enlarged without perms and i would like all this to be done with a permit so that i know that it's being done with the compliance of the building and inspection department. thank you very much. i really do hope you respect this act that we're neighbors, we're trying to build a nice
neighborhood and not somebody just trying to take a profit. president miguel: thank you. i'll call you when it's time. put it down. it will come up. face up. >> my name is gerald wilson. i own the property directly behind. there's a few developments i would like to talk about today as a result of ms. hanson and mateo also. it's incredible how many things are not -- i actually have a picture -- this picture is a picture of what the rear of the building looks like now. as you can see, there's a window there that was cut that's basically eight feet across. there's two sheets of a general contractor. there are two sheets of four by eight plywood there. you can see that window is bigger than eight feet wide and about six feet tall. what they're seeing there, if you look on the left, they're
saying that's existing -- the picture on the left, that little teeny window that is 30 by four, well, -- 30 by 40, well, that's what they're saying is there. look at the left picture. and look at that picture. this is what goes on in their plans on about 10 different things. so originally i was going to come today and say the whole fact that you guys are saying it's ok for this illegal structure to be 18 inches away from property line is ok, if i as a general contractor in san francisco, if i came to you guys tomorrow and said i want to build a new building that's 18 implings from my property line, you would tell me get out of here, it's ridiculous. yet these people would tell me to get out of here. we want to make sure there have been seven permits on this property and six of the other ones were suspended because of them not doing what was on the plans. what mateo and lenny is saying is we want assurance that when you guys finally approve these plans that these are the plans
that they're actually going to do. i'm here to say that about this window that we're talking about, you're going to have a property line window. this goes back to the other case also. a property line window normally is a fire rated window. it can be wire glass, it can be a block, a glass block. there's also a newer thing in the last five years. you can have an opening window that as long as there isn't a fire, it works just like any other opening window. it has safety glass in it, but it has automatic censors that close when there's a fire. this woman right here is saying yes, and that's true. the last project, they have the right to make sure they're not going to put one of those windows in, which is what i want to make sure for this property. since this is only 18 inches from property line, i would like to see a fixed window go into this space that does meet the size requirements that they're talking about and i would like to see it opaque, which means you can't see through it, so they can't see my property back
to them. that's all i'm asking for today. please be aware. these people have been very sneaky. six of those perms were suspended for doing things that were not in their plans. thank you very much, gentlemen and ladies. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening. i am with the hayes valley transportation and planning committee. we obviously want this building to be restored and fit the context of the block. it's a very historic block. and this is the one horrible eyesore on it. however,, everything that's been said so far has been our experience as well, the misrepresentations and the community's need to call for a review to get in there and see that what's being represented is absolutely false. and it's finally rescinded.
we've been living with a curb cut since a year ago november, taking up one to two parking spaces. initially it was secured purely with sawhorses. we had to get them to secure it properly. and in the context of that, i did meet him on the street and volunteered to have the neighborhood association transportation and planning committee act as an honest broker between the neighbors, the communitying and himself, to have some outreach, and of course, that has not been followed up on. there's been no attempt to do that in the least. so from the community's point of view, what we're looking for, clearly he's withdrawn his request to ram a garage in a street where there are no curb cuts. we want the curb cut restored, and we want it restored correctly with the original granite that can be the curb and
is for the rest of the block, as opposed to something piecemeal. he said he always wants good faith and wants to do things in keeping with the community. when i asked him what his plans were for the facade of the buildings, since three sides of it are the original framing and one of them, which is the face side, is very heavily deteriorated stucco, which will also require major repairs hen he restores the bay that he egregiously ripped out. if he wants to show good faith, one thing that he could do is try to restore the front of the facade to its more historic clapboard as opposed to, as he called it, patch and fix the stucco. again, the neighborhood association really tries to act as good broker. what's gone on here has been one of the most frustrating and