Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6 Brief with exhibits for Appeal # HAND DELIVERED on January 8, 2015 To: Board of Appeals To: Jeanne & Scott Stone,940 Esmeralda, San Francisco, CAg4110 Dear Chairperson and Members of the Board of Appeals. Attached find our appellant brief for Appea I # re: 940 Esmeralda. Thank you for reading and considering it. Sincerely,--r+P;&,rtD*f frru- Evelyn Jean Pine & Douglas Peckler 256 Ripley Street San Francisco, CA (415) e evy@well.cem.r"

7 Appeal # Page 1 of 9 TO: THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: Evelyn Jean Pine & Doug Peckler RE: Appeal # Esmeralda 1. INTRODUCTION: We (Evelyn Jean Pine & Doug Peckler) live at 256 Ripley Street, in Bernal Heights. Evelyn has owned our home for more than 32 years, since April Doug became a co-owner in Esmeralda Street, owned by Jeannie and Scott Stone, is the property which abuts our rear property line. The lot at 940 Esmeralda is 25 feet wide and 180 feet long. 940 Esmeralda and 256 Ripley Street are both zoned RH-2 and part of the Bernal Heights, regulated under the San Francisco Planning Code: Section 242:Bernal Heights Special Use District. (Exhibit #A: Assessor s Map.) The topography of the hill is that these two lots slope down from Esmeralda to Ripley. At the lot line, our land slopes up to the east, but not higher than 940 Esmeralda. 2. The Issue. We are protesting the issuance of permit # because: A) it is an attempt to legalize a deck that doesn t conform to the San Francisco Planning Code and negatively affects us and other neighbors, B) it was not seriously reviewed by the Planning Department which is supposed to oversee zoning and land-use issues, C. It ignores the rules for development in Bernal Heights and San Francisco.

8 Appeal # Page 2 of 9 Please note, we didn t want this issue to come before the Board of Appeals. After Doug had spoken with the owners about the deck, we arranged a formal meeting with them and met with the owners on July 30, 2014 to encourage them to remove the illegal obstruction. Instead, in response to a complaint, they submitted an application for a building permit to legalize the two-story deck. We protest the use of the permit process to make legal a structure which is illegal under the city Planning Code. 2. The Structure The two-story elevated deck is located in the northeastern corner of the 940 Esmeralda property, up against the rear lot line to our property. (See Exhibit A: Assessor s Map; X marks the illegal structure.) The deck is constructed in the 81 square foot rear yard area protected by the SF Planning Code. Included as Exhibit B are photographs of the elevated structure secured to the ground by concrete footings with a deck which surrounds, but is not supported by a tree. Please note these features in the photographs: o The deck is extremely close to our (and their) rear lot line. (What you see piled on our lot is debris from 940 Esmeralda not the slope and grade of our lot. Apologies.) (Exhibit B-1 & 2: Photos) o The structure is clearly a deck and not suspended from the tree (Exhibit B-3: Photos)

9 Appeal # Page 3 of 9 o The deck is extremely tall and not set up for play by children. (Note: the youngest child residing at 940 Esmeralda part time is a high school junior.) (Exhibit B-4: Photos) o The deck appears to be connected to a possibly illegal use-structure that has mechanical, electrical, and, possibly, gas lines attached with the wires hanging over the retaining wall. (Exhibit B - 1, 2, 5, 6: Photos) There are no permits on file that show that any of this has been permitted and/or inspected. o Relative to the height of the doors used as a wall leading up to the deck, the deck appears to be significantly higher than 3 feet, eight feet, or even ten feet. In fact, it towers above their lot and ours. (Exhibit- B6: Photo). The structure is, as the owners note on their permit application (Exhibit C: Permit application) where they write reduce deck area, a deck. On the permit application, the owner, checked YES in Box 19: Does this alteration create deck or horizontal extension to the building. The owners do not note the planned new square footage as required on the form. The structure is referred to as a tree house/play structure on the Permit Application. However, the deck is secured to the ground, not the tree and is unsafe for children, if they are present. As we are sure the Board of Appeals has heard many times: If it looks like deck, and functions like a deck, appears to all observers as a deck, and is called by the owners a deck, it is a deck.

10 Appeal # Page 4 of 9 3. The regulations According to the SF Planning Code, Bernal Special Use District, Section 242, 45% of the total depth of a lot in Bernal Heights must serve as rear yard. The lot under discussion is 180 feet in length, which means 81 feet from the back property line are considered the rear yard and not buildable. Only particular structures can be built in this area and they are limited to those in which the light, air, view, and privacy of adjacent lots are not seriously affected. (SF Planning Code Section 136.) According to the SF Planning Code, Section 136, C, 24, b: The deck because it borders our lot line can be no more than 3 feet above grade at the floor of the deck. (B) Slope of more than 15 percent and no more than 70 percent. The floor of the deck shall not exceed a height of three feet above grade at any point along any lot line bordering the required open area, nor shall such floor penetrate a plane made by a vertical angle 45 degrees above horizontal with its vertex three feet above grade at any lot line bordering the required open area, except that when two or more lots are developed with adjacent decks whose floor levels differ by not more than three feet, whether or not the lots will remain in the same ownership, each deck may come all the way to the lot line adjacent to the other deck. In addition, the vertical distance measured up from grade to the floor of the deck shall not exceed seven feet at any point in the required open area.

11 Appeal # Page 5 of 9 The Permit:# Permit # was improperly approved, based on misinformation, is internally inconsistent, and results in a structure that violates numerous provisions. (Exhibit C: Permit Application.) The SF Building code Section 175 (a) Approval of Permits makes it clear that no application for a building permit should be issued which would authorize a... structure contrary to the provisions of this Code. According to the Planning Department's website ( index.aspx?page=2772), only decks that are within the buildable area of the lot and less than or equal to ten feet that can be approved over the counter. However, that is not the case with elevated structure at the rear lot line which is required to be no more than 3 feet above grade. The permit includes misinformation (labelling the two-story deck structure as a tree house/play structure) and excludes relevant information. For example, in Box 23 is checked yes, if there are any other existing buildings on lot. The form also says, if yes, attach plot plan, but no plot plan is attached. The building inspector who actually came out to see the deck and wanted it removed and was told the deck was a temporary structure was not the person who granted this permit. This permit was granted over the counter. In addition, the Section 242 (6) of the Planning Code which deals with Bernal Heights states that residential development is subject to review and notification

12 Appeal # Page 6 of 9 procedures as well as any applicable guidelines from the East Slope Building Guidelines. 3. The Structure's impact. The planning code has been established to fairly govern impacts, so we ask that it be fully observed. This massive structure intrusively affects the Bernal mid-block greenspace with height, placement, and mass that exceed code. Several neighbors have privacy reduced by the tower-like structure that looms over adjacent yards. It impacts precious light in an extremely shadowed area. It towers over our yard, and encourages those who use it to peer out into our yard. This intrusion into the unbuildable areas of our green space will negatively affect the value of our property. It intrudes on us in a way that negatively affects our use of our yard. This deck sacrifices our privacy and quiet for the views of the applicants and their paying guests. Because of the new short-term rental legislation and the applicant s history of renting out their home, we know that if this structure remains it will be used by transient visitors to the area who will be able to use it whenever they like. This will adversing affect our residential privacy, make our home and yard less comfortable, and diminish our home s property value if the home was ever for sale.

13 Appeal # Page 7 of 9 4. The applicants history of development Since 1998 the applicant have been granted four building permits, and although, it appears in every case, extensive work has been done, no permit has been finalized. It is obvious from our pictures and the descriptions of their property online that extensive work has been done more appropriate for an illegal entertainment venue than for residential living. 5. The applicants history of illegal commercial use in a residential neighborhood. The owners of 940 Esmeralda used their home in our residential neighborhood as an illegal site for weddings and other events. When another neighbor brought a complaint about this illegal use, and, in negotations with the Planning Department Enforcement, they finally stopped using the residential home in this way, after charging over $2300 (in 2013) and over $2700 (in 2014) for parties of at times 100 (maybe more) people over three years time. As a result of the Planning Department investigation, the ads for these rentals have been removed, so copies can only be seen at the Planning Department and they cannot be copied. However, we have attached a still online example of a couple s description of one of the many paid outdoor events. (Exhibit E: Wedding Venue Announcement) These events were finally shut down by the Planning Department at the end of the summer, but the entertainment venue facilities have not been dismantled.

14 Appeal # Page 8 of 9 6. The appropriate remedy. This structure is so intrusive and out of scale, it should not be allowed to remain even if the owners of 940 Esmeralda wish to create a legal deck. They should remove this structure and begin again, with appropriate guidance from the Planning Department, appropriate permits, neighborhood notification, etc. The permit should be revoked and any illegal, unpermitted structures in the rear yard including sound system, unpermitted electrical, gas, and mechanical work, other unpermitted decks, terracing, paving, infill etc. and anything else that served as part of an illegal commercial entertainment venue should be dismantled and removed. If the applicant wishes to build on their property, they shoutd comply with the rules as their other neighbors do and begin by going to the Planning Departrnent to understand what is appropriate and permitted under the regulations to ensure that we all continue to live happily in this remarkable neighborhood called Bernal Heights. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Wfu a*idr"p^/"*".. Evelyn Jean Pine and Douglas Peckler 256 Ripley Street San Francisco, CA 94110

15 Appeal # EXHIBITS LIST OF EXHIBITS: TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit A: Assessor s map marked with location of the properties and location of illegal deck. Exhibits - Page 1 Exhibit B 1-8: Photos of illegal deck and other structures. Exhibits - Pages 2-9 Exhibit C: Copy Building of Permit # Exhibits - Pages Exhibit D: List of 940 Esmeralda permits that were granted but never finalized Exhibits - Page Exhibit E: Wedding Venue Announcement Exhibits - Page 15

16 ?wh,{ruj- I\ : W}arP In c icrx-h\^l Lo[: o A6{p RIPLEY 59.?5 e5r aolo 61&6e H 99.?5 54 se.?s 37 74s " e4?5 ZE 6 z9 5A? il30 3t o ft o32 N LOT 46 35o. W Fna,r-kr loc.rhc.ryr c{ I,tm ESM?'l o ERALDA AV E. lln6ol cl ell, a +o:. o i{ lll z 3 1 tt- P to., #,

17 photo B1

18 photo B2

19 photo B3