12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Baker explained that all the wood was redwood and the new fence frame was constructed with three, instead of two, 2x4 cross-members for added strength. He used 2x4 wood blocks attached to the 4x4 posts using galvanized wood screws to support the 2x4 cross-members for added strength. He stated all face boards were attached with galvanized wood screws and a 4x6 post was used at the street-end for added strength for future gate construction. He stated that he did all the labor himself and it took him a little over one week to build. Mr. Baker stated that Mr. Pretzel observed the construction and had no complaints and did not request any changes. He mentioned that the fence height was never discussed before or during construction. Mr. Baker noted that after the fence construction, the future addition of gates was discussed with Mr. Pretzel. He told Mr. Pretzel that he would be completing his gate after completing the concrete work on his side. He stated that after the completion of his gate, he planned to reduce the height of the two fence sections at the gate-end, approximately 12 feet long, to the same height as the gate which is approximately 6 feet high. He explained that Mr. Pretzel agreed to the plan for the gate and was pleased with the construction of the fence, up to that point. He also stated that Mr. Pretzel made no comments on the height of the fence and made no demands to lower it. He explained that a permit application was prepared and submitted to the Planning Division on August 31, 2011, signed by himself and Mr. Pretzel. Ms. Stern asked if the application was signed by both Mr. Baker and Mr. Pretzel. Mr. Baker confirmed that it was signed by both of them. Mr. Pretzel stated he withdraw his signature from that application. Mr. Pretzel stated that because Mr. Deike was present, this hearing was biased. He explained that as a condition of approval for Mr. Deike's fence; Mr. Deike was to talk to Ms. Fink before October 11, 2011, but he did not. He stated that the Planning Division acted as Mr. Deike's agent and talked to Ms. Fink. Ms. Fink clarified that Mr. Deike talked to her first before a representative from the City came to talk to her. Ms. Stern told Mr. Pretzel that the hearing today is regarding Mr. Baker's fence application, not Mr. Deike's fence application. Mr. Pretzel stated that since 1998, Mr. Baker has known how upset he has been about the other fence. He noted that the fence between his property and Mr. Baker's property is approximately 6 inches higher on his side than on Mr. Baker's side. He commented that the judgments in height on Mr. Baker's side of the fence are erroneous. He mentioned that Mr. Baker built up his property with 2 to 3 high redwood ties, piling the dirt up against the existing fence using half-inch baseboard. He explained that, at his own expense, he put up 2XIOs to shore up the dirt. He noted that the agreement was to build the fence with 2xlOs and he expected the fence to look like the recently constructed fence between Mr. Baker and Mr. Fink's property with 2x10 on one side and a height of six feet on his side. He noted that the fence design was changed constantly. Mr. Pretzel indicated that he was told that this is a civil matter. Mr. Pretzel commented that he had to clean up all the discarded face boards. He explained that he works fulltime and that Mr. Baker was to wait for him to get home, but he did not and had removed 1/3 of the fence. He noted that Mr. Baker is self-employed and can work anytime. He mentioned that the decision was made to not use redwood paint because it could bleed through to the other side. He stated that they never discussed how high the fence would be. Vlinotes, Zoning.Idministrulor, P11-0731 October 25, 2011 Page 2