tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 28, 2019 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT
i represent eric rice. in a preliminary level, the requesters have argued a lot of points on the merit. they failed to address the actual legal standards before the board tonight, which is whether the city did anything intentionally or inadvertently to cause them to delay in filing the appeal. they failed to provide any testimony, any argument, any evidence that addresses the singular question, this annular standard that is before the board, and the fact is the city didn't do anything wrong. the city did not do anything inadvertently, did not do anything intentionally, the city did not cause the requesters to be late in filing this appeal. the fact is, mr. rice has been
discussing with them, doing this very project since january of 2019. that it has been in discussions with their predecessors since 2016. this has been a project that has been in the works four years. and whatever happened in 2018 is irrelevant to what is happening before the board tonight. once the discussion started, once the requesters were well on notice by -- that mr. rice was going to do this, they did nothing to protect their own property rights and they failed to appeal the permit within 60 days. so that is the only question before the board tonight, but if we are to address the merits at all, which i'm not sure that is even appropriate, the requesters have made all source of arguments based on assumptions, based on irrelevant matters, for instance, they made the assumption that the permit was
issued improperly or that mr. rice failed to tell the building department what his status is in terms of his ownership and where he actually lives. all that is untrue. he did tell the building department very specifically where he lives, that he holds an easement, and he was very honest with them about what was going on. i don't want to let it hang, but there are assumptions, they assumptions are simply not true. i have 30 seconds left, but if the board has any questions, i'm happy to respond to them. >> could you describe the concern, a little bit, the easement and what the nature of it is, what does it grant, what does it allow? >> it was attached to the opening. it is a specific you seasoned that allows mr. rice to have four areas of storage within the carport that is part of the 141
and 143 building, and in my brief, i try to provide a brief history of what was going on here. >> i guess what i was curious about is how you read the easement to allow for construction or modification of the space, and if that is expressly included. i wasn't clear that that was part of the easement. >> the easement does not specify whether include or his can be made or not, what does exist at least say that it is exclusive possession, and to the extent there is any ambiguity about interpreting what that easement language is, that is a civil matter that will need to be resolved between the parties outside of this forum. >> thank you. >> the easement incorporates the covenants of the condo association. do those covenants and restrictions permit construction in the common area? >> the easement only incorporates article seven, the use restriction. does not incorporate other articles including article six,
for instance, which would address the design criteria that the h.o.a. goes through, and so the easement does not incorporate other portions, only the use restriction, and they do not have any restriction on building enclosures. >> okay. is it the case that your client erected a structure in this area before you had a building permit >> that is true. my client acknowledges that he did so without a permit, but he took it down knowing that he had to take a permit. that is ancient history. ultimately he did get a permit to do permitted work and that is what is before the board tonight >> my last question is as he informs the building department that he had rights under the easement. is that in the record somewhere? >> i will let mr. rice answer that question. >> the building department took copies of the easement with highlighting of the relevant portions so i knew exactly what
i was proposing and under what status. >> thank you. that is helpful. >> because i asked the question to the appellant, are you in agreement that the garages, the common area in the h.o.a. and it is not granted for use by the h.o.a.? >> i actually have not seen the legal description and i apologize, are not able to answer that question, but i do know that the easement, which is the recorded document, does provide use to mr. rice in the garage to mr. rice. >> mr. rice, do you have any thoughts on that? do you have any knowledge or opinion that that space, which is the garage, is h.o.a. -- is an h.o.a. grant, we are property as far as the condo? >> i'm not sure you understand the question. the space which is the garage that you use, is that owned by
yourself as part of your condo, is that your assumption, or is it what the appellant said, it is granted -- the use is granted to you, but owned by the homeowner's association? >> the latter. it is granted under the condo. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> thank you. you can be seated. >> thank you very much. >> mr. sanchez? >> good afternoon. scott sanchez, planning department. i will be brief on this matter. i think there aren't any planning code issues. it is extra not required at the time that the new structure was built in the subdivision occurred. they would be no issue under the planning code with converting parking to storage or and a.d.u. , for that matter. i'm available for any questions. it is probably more of an issue
for d.b.i. or a civil issue. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit to convert existing carport space to enclosed storage space, i'm reviewing the plans and i did not see anything wrong with the work itself and what they are doing. i think the issue is the issuance of the permit and how the applicant obtains the permit if you did see in the brief, there was a permit application and a copy of the typical form and certification. at the time, the permit was issued d.b.i. were okay with that, and there was -- the easement was provided. and i did see in the brief that the appellants or the requesters went to d.b.i. i would probably, in addition to that, have advised them to refer to the central permit bureau to do the checking of who we give
our permits to, who applies to them, because if you come in -- if i obtained a permit for something else -- from someone else, i have to have authorization for that permit from that person. there are checks and that is done right before permit issuance. if we did do something in error and we were misled, we would look into that and possibly revoke the permit if it was issued in error, were from what i see, they did provide documentation to someone at d.b.i., so at this point, i would say that the permit is valid, unless they can provide us with some documentation that it is not. it could be, indeed a civil issue as mr. sanchez said. we could ask our city attorney for an opinion on it. as for d.b.i., we also have -- there are several city attorneys
that work with d.b.i. sometimes we have to go to them for an opinion on this, as well, just because the city could be party do something later on, but for now, i would say the permit is valid, i think. >> just so i understand from education, from d.b.i.'s perspective, if you are provided with a copy of an easement and provide -- and nothing authorizing from the owner of the property, that is sufficient for d.b.i.'s procedure? >> it seems to have been in this case, yes. as you see, it was in the brief and i read it last night. mr. rice said i was granted an easement for use of these two storage spaces. whoever read that at d.b.i. thought it was enough to give them the permit. whether that was done in a detailed way or not, i wouldn't know that, but if we were challenged on it, we could look into the merit of, did we make a mistake and issue the permit. at this point, i don't see that,
but possibly there is. >> just to eliminate the pathway forward and what the appellant could do or the permit holder could do, and what d.b.i.'s rule is, what can they do? did they go to the other agency within d.b.i. to request him to look into it in the meantime and is the permit valid? the gentleman could construct it in the meantime, and then we're looking backwards. how does it proceed to look into the matter of who has the authority to construct within their property, and how does that unfold? >> they could fight a come -- file a complaint with d.b.i. and we will start the investigation. it could be that the complaint numbers issued improperly to the wrong party. we would contact the permit holder and say, hey, you have to hold off on this construction until we figure this out. and sometimes it does get very -- when it turns into a civil issue, these people might need to file a lawsuit on this.
when it gets too complicated for us, we say go to the court to figure this out. you get an injunction to stop the work, as well. but when people present documents to d.b.i., and when you fill in a permit application and you reflected that you are allowed to get that permit and you say on the form, that is a legal document, and if proven otherwise somewhere else, that's a whole other case. you have committed fraud, anyway , if that is what you have done. these are legal forms and you want to be careful about how you fill them out and what you put down on there because you could be challenged at the board of appeals or in some other place which is the court, probably. but from what we were given, obviously someone at d.b.i. said okay, you put yourself down here , you have this easement, you have provided us with the easement. for that alone, they got the permit. it later on we find out they haven't given the permit, we can resend the permit and revoke it.
>> thank you. >> i don't know where that leaves the request, but i hope i answered that right. >> mr. duffy, there's no notice requirement on the issuance of this, correct? >> no, not for this type of work >> i would like to bring up the city attorney on this and maybe he can shed some light. so, mr. duffy, you can stick around. you are not getting off so easy. you can't get on the golf course anyway. i'm going to look at the glass half full and say that the permit holder presented to this, what he thought was a just cause to get that permit, and he elaborated perfectly on that, however, the permit holder, they
had an easement about the permit holder, but the permit holder does not own the property onto which the improvements are being made, and as we have discussed many times here, and another condominium or any other real estate situation, of the other occupants aren't necessarily real estate experts, and they might assume, a dangerous word, that no, the h.o.a. owns that space, nothing could possibly happen in that space unless the h.o.a. approved it, and therefore, they would not contest, they wouldn't even look for a permit because how could a permit to be thought about on something that somebody doesn't own? so i can see it both ways. and i would look to the city attorney, what are your thoughts on, or is this a civil matter?
what are your thoughts on this, that a permit was issued without the permission of the h.o.a. who , in fact, owns the open space, and has granted an easement for use, but didn't grant any construction? >> i would make a couple comments on the same matter. first, as the board knows, it is whether the city intentionally or inadvertently because of the sequester to be late in filing the appeal. that doesn't mean that any time the requester alleges that the city improperly issued a permit that they cause the requester to be late. they would have to be something related to the actual notice, otherwise, any time a requester, three months later, decided that the city improperly issued a
permit, they could make a jurisdiction request. does that make sense? after the underlying issue, i would agree that the interpretation of what that means is a civil matter for the parties to figure out in the civil courts. >> on the issue of notice, and they understand this was made by the permit holders' council, but the issue clearly was properly noticed given. my understanding was there was no notice required. >> but if a permit was issued to somebody, in fact, who didn't own the land, that becomes a civil issue for discussion? and if it was -- here's the conundrum, is that if it was improperly issued because it was issued to somebody who did not own the land and did not have the right to make improvements
onto the loans, then by virtue of the fact that it was improperly issued, then with, " along with the notice situation there's no notice on it. my point is there's no notice on a permit to the never should have been issued in the first place, and of course, the h.o.a. is not going to appeal something that they wouldn't even think of seeing coming because it would be inappropriate for somebody to even file a permit without going through the h.o.a. this is the vicious circle. >> i suppose it could be argument that that is the case. i don't know that i can give you a legal opinion on that issue at this point. i think they do have a recourse in making a case to d.b.i. and that the permit was -- d.b.i. improperly consider the information that was considered -- that was provided to it.
>> i agree. so as far as this jurisdiction request, if we felt that it was improperly issued for the reasons i stated -- >> if you feel you have grounds to find that the city because the requester to be late by issuing this because they didn't provide notice to the h.o.a. and the h.o.a. should have been notified because they have a legal right to know what is going on, you could find that as a basis for granting jurisdiction. >> in a roundabout way, thank you very much. i couldn't find a clear way to ask the question, but you gave the answer that i wanted. thank you. >> just one thing i would like to add. the forms that this was brought to, they did not exhaust their options with d.b.i., in my opinion. they were told by the jurisdiction request.
there was no complaint filed with us about this, which would have been a good start, and maybe they were just told straight off, file a jurisdiction request. you advised people about the board of appeals in the processes, but we always think we should exhaust our options before we start telling people to go to the board of appeals, you know, because if we issuing a permit, we are happy to look into that if that is the case. we have done that many times. this is not the first time someone came in and got a permit it has happened before. people have got permits on people's properties without permission we fed to revoke the permits. that is an option, as well. it is not finished here tonight if they still pursue that. i didn't see anything in writing from d.b.i. to say that it was either proper -- improperly issued are properly issued. we didn't revoke, there was no revocation request, but we are happy to look into that. i just wanted to add that.
>> mr. duffy, if a stranger on a property tries to get a building permit, his or any procedure of the building department to notify the owner of the property >> you have to have a written permission from the owner of the property to get the permit. >> if someone tries to get one without permission? >> we would not notify. again, you are feeling these in. we do 66,000 of these a year. people fill the van and they're supposed to be filled in honestly and all the associated forms. we depend on people's honesty that they have the right to get that permit and we're issuing it properly. we assume all issues -- was simple permits are issued properly unless we are told otherwise. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> this is a jurisdiction
request, and the city, as far as i can determine, did not inadvertently or intentionally cause requested to be late. we would have to take jurisdiction in order to weigh on whether the permit was properly issued or not, and i don't see the basis for the jurisdiction, and since there is remedy to the requester his, i don't think there was any harm or foul, so to speak. >> i would like to know, actually, just based on the requester's body language, i would like to know if they complained before the permit application was filed to the building department work during the appeal period. i'm a little troubled by this case. i think if the building department told them something that led them astray, that, to me, would suggest a problem. >> yes. when i returned from out of town on june 1st, we were given --
mr. rice gave us a copy of his granted application for permit on june 6. all this, by the way, is written down. two days later, i went to d.b.i. i personally went to d.b.i. and said, what do i do about this? this is coming up on my property somebody just pulled an easement on my property. i went around and talk to five people. everybody sent me to a different person. the last person i was sent to told me to write up a complaint to the head of the chief inspector, patrick, whatever his name is, and i did that. i did that immediately and i think it was filed on june 10th . we have a copy of that if you like to see it, it is not with us today. i filed that on june 10th. a week later, i called the chief of d.b.i. and i asked to ask what was going on. i got no answer. a week later, i called back and
the chief said, well, i have sent it off to the guy who was in charge of the division they gave you that, that grants that. then i called the guy, i believe his name is daniel lowry, i called him right away and i asked him, what about this? he said, well, i don't know. the planning commission signed off on it so it is okay. i asked him about the easement and he said, i don't know. he represents himself as an owner, and then on the last page , he says he is an owner of an easement. i don't know, he said, and then he said, the best thing for you to do would be to appeal, so we called the board of appeals and they said, you're too late to appeal, and then they said, you know, it is an interesting case, you should talk to whoever it is who is sitting right in front of me who i called up, and he told me the procedures to do and we filed as soon as we could.
yes, we did go through a complaint, we got the runaround from d.b.i. and never really a clear answer as to why this was permitted in the first place, and secondly, we never got an answer for why this particular structure was permitted, but that is not an issue here. if there is recourse, of course, we would like to take it, but that was what we went through, and that is why we are here today. there is a process for doing this. there is a process for altering easements that are on common space. it is a process that mr. rice didn't choose to follow. had he choosing to follow, we wouldn't be here today. >> thank you. >> any other questions? mr. duffy, just to be clear, i
will not anticipate a vote one way or the other because i am unclear on my own direction, but if we deny the appeal for jurisdiction, will you be clear on what the appellant's next step might be to d.b.i.? is there, or is -- when i read the brief, i didn't see any complaint, obviously all these people here are pretty high up in d.b.i., they are all management chiefs and deputy directors, but i don't see anything in the brief on that. i checked the address, we can't find a complaint, that's you are never done with d.b.i. you can come back and say, hey, i didn't get what i should have got, but these people spoke to
people in management. i don't think we looked into it well enough. it could be something that we was sent to the city attorney and say, give us a judgement on this, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of easements and who has what, we're probably going to turn around and say, look, this is a civil issue. as far as i'm concerned, it sounds like they spoke to people in d.b.i. i don't have any record of that, or couldn't find it in the computer system to look at complaints, so i believe them, but i don't see the proof. >> if we deny the appeal and it came tomorrow, to they file a complaint and open up pandora's box, yet again? >> of course,, yeah. again, i think it gets into the nitty-gritty of the easement and the rights of the easement. >> this is my concern would that
comment, mr. duffy, is if they had been involved in the process at the beginning and d.b.i. said , well whoa whoa, easements are complicated, i'm not a lawyer, this is not my job, a court has to decide this, i assume that your decision at this point would be to not is you'd the permit until it is resolved. i would assume he wouldn't issue the permit while at the same time saying, but i don't really know if you are authorized to do this. >> i think the permit would have been issued anyway, but i think you're talking about after the -- after the permit is issued and not letting the work proceed until it is resolved. >> i'm saying, before the permit is issued in the owner walks in and says, i own this property, this person has an easement, they not entitled to do this and you respond as you have said and you say, we don't get into the nitty-gritty of easements, at that point, i assume you wouldn't issue the permit because now it is become a little complicated and you want these people to work it out. >> i think the question is, you know, if you had any doubt about someone's authority to apply for
a permit and receive the permit, would issue the permit would you resolve the question over whether that person has authority? >> in this case, they presented the easement to d.b.i. and the person who approved it, approved it properly based in what they were given, but if we are given new information later, we can stop the project until it is resolved and say, hey, that is where you find your complaint. you know, i looked up 141 albion and i couldn't find any complaint. i'm happy to speak to the people about it. certainly, if we issued a permit , then we are the first ones who will revoke that permit it is in the building code if it is issued. i guess what one way to do it will be to give them the opportunity to appeal the permit if in the meantime this gets resolved, then they withdraw the appeal, but that is entirely up
to yourselves. certainly, from my experience as a senior building inspector at d.b.i., when we are not satisfied with something we have been told, there is a higher body, we have a commission, as well. we have a director. if you don't thank you have been given the proper treatment, you're welcome to bring that to a higher level. maybe that is what these people need to do. we happy to look into it again. if i was handling it myself, i would definitely involve our city attorney and say, we are being questioned on the issuance of this permit, did we get enough? was this a proper information we were given to grant this permit? and we would definitely do that. that would be the least we could do. in the meantime, we would say to the permit holder, suspend all work until this issue is resolved. sometimes then that does lead to a legal case involving the parties, which is maybe where they're going with it anyway. >> thank you. >> i'm also troubled by this
case. i'm trying to think through what is the impact of our jurisdiction and it would seem like even if we were to take the case, the civil matter of how to interpret the c.c. nr and the easement if we have authority to file and receive permits would still questioned that this body would not be able to adjudicate, that is not our role. until that issue is resolved, neither d.b.i. or this board would have much clarity in making a fair decision. there is remedy available. i want to hear -- i want people to here is that there are things to do to pause the construction, or have d.b.i. run it up to their attorney to understand if it is clear once you provide information. and maybe it is not. unfortunately that becomes a civil matter which is time, money, and resources, or maybe you can resolve it amicably without attorneys.
that is kind of where my mind goes. while i'm sympathetic to what has happened, i am not sure that this resolves it. i'm hoping to being persuaded if someone can do that. >> when we have a permit before us, we will say we are denying the appeal because of permit was properly issued. we have no basis for knowing that at this point, whether it was or was not, because we would need to take jurisdiction first. i don't believe we have met the criteria for taking jurisdiction i would not support a motion to take jurisdiction. >> i agree with commissioner tanner's comments. i think there is an argument to be made that the owner of a property is not on any kind of notice that anyone could get the building permit on their property, and if someone doesn't have no authority to get one gets one, that -- i think a
complaint to the building department is probably where the requesters should start. >> i would support the commissioner lazarus in anticipation of her motion, and advise the requester to take the advice of mr. duffy and file a separate complaint and get this back on track if you believe, if you continue to believe that you are in the right. okay? missioner lazarus, would you like to make a motion? >> i believe i did. deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city neither inadvertently or intentionally cause the requester to be late.
>> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to deny the request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause requester to be late filing an appeal. on that motion... [roll call] that motion carries 4-0 on the request is denied. >> move back to item number 4 regardless. >> we're back to item number 4. i am assuming, i didn't see anyone come in, the requester is not here, so why don't we give an opportunity for the permit holder to respond. >> thank you. on behalf of the permit holder, thank you for your time here tonight. we will be quick as we are required to be. i'm just reminding you we were here about a month ago, so probably don't need too much
reminding, but wanted to remind you that the project proposes an 18 at residential building. it will share a lot with the historic gas like building. they have been two years of review by the planning department and various decision-making bodies. this is our sixth hearing and our second before you. the project as proposed to be built towards the rear of the lot. this is something that was requested by h.p.c. and as part of the design in order to ensure compatibility with the gas like building. it also leaves attractive open space and opens up the garden and views of the gas like building. it is definitely a preferable configuration for the building and it was supported that was granted by the zoning administrator with the proper findings. you can see from the rendering, the configuration is compatible with a lot and with a brand-new building.
the appellants recently finished construction, noting that the units were sold while our project was underway. there project receive the same rear yard modification as well as additional variances. the appellant has provided no evidence or arguments that there is manifest injustice. there is no request or basis for a rehearing here. we ask that you deny the request thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. the issues that were raised in there rehearing request or arguments that were raised.
i believe we addressed them at the appeal hearing. i don't see it as any grounds for their hearing based on the fax. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, missioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i move to deny the rehearing request that we have not received any new information, nor will manifest such a result from denying the request. >> we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the request on the basis that there is no information or manifest injustice. on that motion... [roll call] >> motion carries 4-0 and the request is denied. thank you. okay, we are now moving on to item number 6. this is appeal number 19-061, ben lewis versus the department a building inspection with the planning department approval. the subject property is
protesting the issuance on may 24th 2019 of a site permit, vertical addition, roof decks and a new master bedroom, no changed occupancy or parking. the board voted 5-0 to continue the appeal so the permit holder can get revised plans approved by the planning department. we will hear first, how about we hear from the planning department first? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. we did work with the permit architect to provide plans that address the issues. there was only one outstanding question of what was actually there in 2008. all we have our aerial photos from the time that will provide us with a perfect understanding.
what they have provided was a good resolution. there was maybe still some lingering questions from d.b.i. i know senior inspector duffy was out talking about the last case and whether a firewall be required. the deck -- the stairs and landing that are being -- as long as they're reconstructed in the same area as they were before, they could be constructed without the firewall and i think this is the assumption that you are all working with here. as long as the plans that they are showing here, d.b.i. can confirm that the firewall is required. we would -- we are focusing on the rear stair and landing, that was the only issue that we had in the department with the permit. the vertical addition, we didn't have any issue. i'm not even sure if he is here this evening, but we are here to
speak on the stair issue. >> we incorporated into this permit a special conditions permit which would help us to get the issue corrected. >> can get mr. duffy to answer your question? >> joe duffy, d.b.i. i believe the question is whether a firewall is required in this case. if you are rebuilding a stairway , existing in-kind, same size, same location, not any different, you would not require firewall. that is kind of a maintenance thing where we are not making people reinvent the wheel because we are just replacing a stairway. we do ask that the guardrails and handrails be updated. does mean that they still have winders and stuff, which are a little bit more complicated to
manoeuvre, but in san francisco, zero lot lines and short rear yards, there's not a lot of room to bring them up to current codes. if you do to bright -- tried to bring them up to current codes, then you are in the firewall. if they put that back the way it was, there is no requirement for a firewall. >> have you had a chance to review the plans? >> just briefly. >> in your review, are you able to divide it -- decide if they do or don't need a firewall? i don't want us to be allowing something -- >> from what i saw, it would not require a firewall because a budding back exactly the same as what was there originally. that is what the architecture was as best as they can. i'm confident enough that that would be the case. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder.
>> thank you. i am the architect. thank you to mr. sanchez and mry and responsiveness this week. we have worked very quickly to come to resolution a resolution, which i am happy to outline for you. we were able to do some research to try to establish, at least within the level of certitude that was satisfactory to mr. sanchez, the original footprint of the 2008 staircase. there are no reliable drawings, but we found an appraiser's photo from 2007 and we took it as evidence. we found solutions to -- i'm sorry. just slide it up. >> these are a copy of the permit drawings that we are able to submit.
so we are removing what is an excess debt that was not minimally required, so there are areas that bring us back from the property line onto the second floor. there is an excess -- we shut everything down to what planning was satisfied and it was a code compliant minimum. so we want to work with mr. duffy to get his best opinion on what we have done. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. i don't see the appellant here, either. is there a representative from -- for the appellant? is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> we grant the appeal and condition it on the revised drawings. i will move that we grant the
appeal and the permit with the revised drawings. >> can you clarify that for the record, are those drawings dated august 7th, 2018? okay. thank you. we have a motion from vice president lazarus to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the plan submitted at the hearing and which are dated august 7th , 2019. it is a condition. when there are conditions, we have to grant an appeal. >> on that motion... [roll call] on what basis is this motion made? >> on the basis that it satisfies the planning and building code.
>> it makes the project code compliant. >> on that motion... [roll call] that motion carries 4-0. okay, thank you. we will now move on to item number 7. protesting the issuance on june 18th, 2019 of an alteration permit to comply with the n.o.v. , the reinforced existing fence, added a new post and install new fence boards. we will hear from the appellant first. [please stand by]
>> order a new post but the older post which is in the application. the owners cut the new post permitted. after the original allowed the posts based on the lie. 7 feet fence. not only did it have the permit but also went ahead and cut the posts and that agreed to be cut. additionally, it was about 7 feet that they didn't agree. the owner also lied on the permit application. this provided from the respondent's brief. you can see here.
this is a grade and the landing is shown here. on april 15th. the respondent lied about the fence of 7 feet being approved. in fact, the whole backyard was illegally. the late notice and lie on apri. the respondent made the foundation underneath the fence for their project. on may 2nd the respondent cut our fence and added a new post. on may 3rd there was cleaning the debris on the property caused by the construction. apology. on may 9th they sent a text to
the respondent regarding parts of the fence exceeding the 7 feet. the respondent went silent. on may 10th a text again on the fence height. there was no response. on may 15th. they asked what can i do? they don't have permit. they filed the complaint. ththe 1946 had the backyard without permit. retaining wall, increase grade. i complained was filed on may 28th. so far no progress has been made there was no appointment for inspection. the new fence is unreasonable. they have a functional fence. the rest of the neighbors also have fence around this height.
there is only one way about that. their claim is in the brief. the height is for proof see reasons but the new construction shows no consideration for neighbor privacy. so you can see here the respondent's built the fence illegally. you can see our whole yard from this position. also the platform is near the exit door. furthermore, from their respondent window they can see our whole yard. through this picture taken by respondent from their windows. i have the conclusion. respondent landscaped the yard in a irrational way without permit. respondent lied about the height. the respondent cut the fence and
removed the posts without permission. there was no civil violation they filed the application with false information. it is the best outlook and privacy. therefore they request the fence permit should have been revoked and the fence should be through the fence. thanks for your attention. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> i am just going to not do that for technical reasons. good afternoon. i am jonathan park the resident of 194 of 6 18th avenue.
i am the tent. the landlord is my father-in-law. in addition to the brief there are three points i would like to raise. first the purpose and intent of the fence as described. second my own reflections given this is coming to the board. third, safety and privacy concerns. on purpose and intent the main intent was what was stated in the application to re-enforce the information and add new posts. the side fence was in place when the 1946 person purchased the fence. updates to the fence coincided with the backyard renovation. the backyard was unsafe for our 2-year-old son in an unusable condition. we moved in 2015. the previous tenants had a sand
box and the concrete and rebar were left behind. we submitted the plans to rebuild. we moved forward april 23rd t t ensure he was aware of the plans to work with his schedule. the side fence is attached to our property and we were planning on fully paying for the updates. the purpose of reaching out was common courtesy to prevent surprises. to request permission for contractors to enter the property during the fence boast installation. this would have reduced the time he and his family may have been inconvenienced. he declined the request and we respected the decision. on reflections and learning, this is the first major project.
i have been a resident for 15 years now. obviously based off the approval of the landlord. inhind site i would have consulted with planning and d.b.i. rather than with the neighbor. this was my first major renovation project. i did not realize i was around the height of limitation of the fences requiring a permit and neighborhood notification. that was an error on my fault. when i realized that we filed the applique on 6/18, 19. both departments provide valuable insights to provide and guide clarity on these matters. safety and privacy. we were finding alte alternate solutions there was tension.
there are two specific incidents where he became confrontation. on may 1st 2019 i received the phone call where he yelled at me for three or four moments straight. he was not calling to have a reasonable conversation. i ended the call to call my contractor to resolve the matter on site. may 3, 2019 he showed up at 7:30 a.m. he was confrontational to my wife. i was rushed to the front door. when i realized the appellant was not ready for a conversation. i asked him to leave. we received the complained letter demanding the apology which would cause fault which we didn't feel would cause fault.
that is why we are here today. his claim that the fence is one foot higher on his side affecting the view from his backyard. the only view is our back yard and clear line of site view to our basement door in exhibit 1-2 of applelant's brief. the claim in his brief only facing the siding of case the staircase to our basement and line of site to our basement door. following the face-to-face confrontation my way was unstaff we installed security cameras. based on the hostility with previous fence design does pose a risk which is a major concern for me. in summary we filed the permit appropriately. the timing is one i admit an
error to based on misunderstanding of the website. i will be as truthful as possible. we believe the on site visit to validate the assumption. maintaining privacy and security four or child and future children is utmost importance. reinforcement updated fence accomplishes this. i respectfully ask the court to grant the permit. i am available for any questions. >> can you talk a little about the appellants claim you cut his fence and replaced the post. that alarming someone is doing something on his property if it was an accident or what happened there? >> the purpose of the fence itself given that it is shared the way it is designed. the posts what we believe it is on our property line the fence boards face his. the while point of the update was to give us design rather
than looking at the back side of the fence. because of the concrete landing below 30 inches we wanted to insure there was the same height fence at that level which meant the post needed replaced. >> thank you. be seated. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. 134 and 136 fences in rear yard are required up to no more than 10 feet. permit is required for any fence more than 6 feet above grade. it does appear the permit was properly reviewed by planning department. the plans appear to show the plans appear to show a fence no more than 10 feet above grade. there is concern about the
overall extent of work done in the rear yard. there was stair access new to the alley in the back with stairs and railings. i think the plans don't show all of that. some of the work may not require a bermitt under the believe -- permit under the building code. the deck is above grade. some work may not require a building permit. it would be helpful to get a full understanding what is done. maybe not everything that needs a permit is shown. if the board were continue to at allow time for more accurate times to happen or simply deny the permit and have them file a new permit to more accurately show the work done looking at the materials and some of itsying the building inspector we are discovering tonight based on the testimony that was given so i think we need to get to the
bottom of what is going on there. that is something d.b.i. can do with a site visit to determine in the highlight to the property under everything that needs a permit to come back for a permit that does that or whether it is done as revision to this permit. the cleaner thing might be to deny the permit and have them go back and start over. the plans are somewhat lacking. what is at issue is where the fence is. we don't have a site plan with the plans that were submitted. there is with the permit holders they submitted plans approved by the city agencies. they don't have the plan showing property lines. that is missing. we don't require survey. the board knows this can be sensitive with regard to whose property line is it. usually it is a civil matter and the parties would hire surveyors
and agree on what the surveyor says or have competing surveyors and they could go to court on that. i am a little birth concerned about the completeness what is provided in the plans and thoroughness of them. that probably doesn't help the board out much. this is your last case. you can noodle on it for a while. >> your recommendation is to revoke the permit? >> i think that unless duffy has other ideas. i am looking at the rear yard and quality of the plans here. maybe the inspector has other ideas to resolve this. >> on the grounds they were properly issued? >> they are incomplete. they are new stairs that go to the alley in the back than is not shown as new condition on the plans. the plans are just the fence. >> how much