Skip to main content

tv   Planning Commission 12816  SFGTV  February 2, 2016 12:00am-2:01am PST

12:00 am
to the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission thursday, january 28, 2016, i'd like to remind the public to during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu we expect commissioner johnson to be absent and commissioner vice president richards should arrive shortly commissioners, the first item on your agenda consideration for items proposed for continuance 29 through 31 had i didn't street proposed for continuance
12:01 am
until march further from the discretion calendar important item 11 i'm pleased to notify you on green street one of the of the two drs has been withdrawn one is withdrawn that's all i have i have no speaker card. >> any public comment on the continuance calendar seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wu move to continue item one >> thank you, commissioners to continue item one. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places you under our
12:02 am
consent calendar consent calendar, are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. i know the one item number 2 for case castro street please remain standing please note that on january 14, 2016, after hearing and closing public comment it was voted to disapprove any public comment? commissioner wu move to disapprove item 2.
12:03 am
>> commissioner antonini no commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to one with commissioner antonini voting against commissioners, the first item on your agenda commission matter approval of the draft minutes for 2016. >> any public comment on minutes i don't see any public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero and practices you on item 4 commissioners questions or
12:04 am
comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you very troubling but insight full article in today's chronicle about the 10 tent cities many are living up to 70 in one tent on division intrastate strait but interviewed a well-spoken 21-year-old man who moved from mere 0 michigan i condemned of commented one of the reasons to come to san francisco he heard the homeless services are excellent in san francisco and probably heard when we have tent cities their left alone this man is a his own addict and asked if he could going to the navigation centers he only wants to get high this is not typical but
12:05 am
certainly a number that fit this description as proposed by supervisor wiener we need to establish are establish a lot more navigation centers like pier 80 in the makings and provide shelter for all those who wish housing that's the key point not all want to go into housing and but the key is to paraphrase what happens at the bar its 2 in the morning they're told by the owner you don't have to go home but can't stay here we have to have tough love and solve this problem we if get enough housing and if we pitched a tent the middle of golden gate park the rangers would say get out of here i mean the laws
12:06 am
apply equally so that should be done. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further move on to department matters item 5 director's report. >> my only announcement on the housing and working group as part of the mayors task force the second is tuesday afternoon in 3 o'clock we are looking at the grandfathering for that and tuesday the second in the planning department on appeal thank you. >> item 6 receive review of past events the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission hearing and good afternoon, commissioners aaron starr manager, legislative affairs for the planning department staff on monday we heard supervisor wiener's path for the withholding housing project it was heard on
12:07 am
december 3rd of last year at the time the commission didn't pass a resolution even without the commission adopt a recommendation supervisor wiener amended it for the staffs recommendation at the planning commission the discussion and the two motions that were entertained by resulted in an automatic approval several public folks from the action coalition and the mouchldz who go come terse and supervisor wiener has support while another argument the committee voted to for the record to the full board with a positive recommendation and a rooftop ordinance which the committee continued for 90 days so the ordinance can be sent back to the planning
12:08 am
commission for additional consideration the government audit and oversight committee discussed the i mp and the student housing during the hearing scott sanchez presented a explanations and doug provided the details on the history of the i p p during the public comment and commissioner moore testified at the hearing the committee said it is generally successful with one not able exception the community and public expressed frustration supervisor peskin note he is expressing opposition and urged the department to continue with the enforcement in order to insure the results and board this weeks ago supervisors we are to hear the
12:09 am
shuttle. >> supervisor yee asked for a two week continuance so to attempt to members of congress revisions to the program about one hour of public comment with supervisor wiener and supervisor tang disinventing no introductions thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night two items of interest 75 howard the board heard the appeals at a previous hearing the board expressed the concerns and the board asked questions the board voted one to four to deny the thirty 9 this motion failed no subsequent motion and it was the board voted 3 to 2 to grant the
12:10 am
variance this motion failed and a subsequent motion was made it was granted by operation of law the board heard an appeal on green street by the dr to october of 2014 and it was unanimously approved the ceqa determination was appealed to the board of supervisors and upheld with a variance to the board of appeals and upheld following the appeal the appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandate that was denied by the california supreme court and the board vote to deny the appeal and uphold the permit in addition lecture the board held the election of officers and elevated commissioner president honda and commissioner president fong to vice president
12:11 am
if no questions item 7. >> 4 had montgomery street an abbreviated institutional master plan. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and honorable members and staff before you an informational item an abbreviated master plan for the post secondary institution requires the post secondary institutions to have on file with the planning department a current i p m that talks about the anticipated master plan the institution in the downtown commercial district occupying or proposing to occupy less than one hundred secret upon review the i mp they have at discretion to hold or not hold the meeting and the western university
12:12 am
occupies the space and is eligible to submit an i 1920 m found in 1941 a large university compromised of 12 schools and university offices undergraduate and 1 hundred and 45 professional degrees that grows the satellite campuses currently northwestern is having property in the city and county of san francisco for the purpose of academic and in june northwestern had the west coast regional offices to handle the alumni the university began 35 hundred square feet of the 12 floor on montgomery street located on the east side between sutter. >> market street this space is currently used for the development
12:13 am
university is concurrently developing under graduate what journalism to support the same offices throb creating a satellite program and this is nor academic courses university intend to utility a common space for alumni as well as university folks the space is to accumulate for a variety of private and public functions the aggregate affiliated with the university located on the 18 floor of montgomery street is 17 thousand plus square feet the i mp no universities beyond the leasable space on montgomery street the future development plans will describe an update the commission the form of an
12:14 am
update that is required every two years after reviewing the contents of the university with the i p m staff agrees with the commission as complete and not hold and hearing that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> any public comment on this item? okay not seeing any, any commission continent. >> commissioner moore. >> dewey it is nice to hear about the history of campus the one tool i hope will be the future doesn't apply at the moment but engaging anyone that has a file into student housing and it is more a policy statement and a need statement than anything by as we are in an toxic place i think we will
12:15 am
serve ourselves to include it as a form of discussion. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that is welcome it shows universities and other institutions recognize san francisco as a business center where there are well served to locate the graduate functions to deal with those issues particularly ones moving here interesting staff report i found out why it is northwestern because of 1850 this was the north western territory so the middle of the country now i know why we welcome the wildcats from the north western. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can pontiff to general public comment not to exceed 15 minutes
12:16 am
at this time, members of the public may address the commission to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when address the commission up to three minutes. i do have a couple of speaker cards. >> great. >> georgia and donald. >> good afternoon commission i just want to reiterate some of the ideas that i think will be used you feel to embattle with the planning process for the neighborhoods not only for noah valley but other residential neighborhood story poles i think that people don't know always read and understand the what is in front of them as the 311 and
12:17 am
story poles could be installed during the 311 period, of course, it depends on the fact that the drawings are accurate and how the story poles are installed but if a professional did it that would be helpful to the planning preprocess and the neighbors the second is the rashgs d g that is worked on now the rear yard mid block open space needs a thorough vetting of what is going on this whole thing with the privacy fences like walls and the merging the inside and outside space sometimes that relates to how deep the excavation when we do the remodels but it is sort of changing the concept of what people if san francisco think of as rear yard mid block open space and the changing of the
12:18 am
cost of fences and the whole idea of mid block open spaces it kind of an under the radar thing that needs to be looked at and lastly roof decks and stair penthouses need to understand their impact and roll in the remodels and how they effect the neighborhood the rh1 and rh2 neighborhoods thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners san francisco residents as everyone knows sf city government gets accused of being the pocket of the developers it go o is likely this is the most hostile development city the world the world bank collects data and during the construction
12:19 am
permits the top ranked cities some are getting building permits one, two weeks and the worst ranked cities afghanistan this commission can take almost a i can't remember, however, in the city of san francisco permits can take as long as to 10 years with the lack of housing shortage and i think it is important, however, we need to show you expedite the park more efficiently to get buildings from permits to groundbreaking on the project site thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> as soon as you start speaking
12:20 am
sfgov will go to the screen. >> i'm charles from the steering committee was asked to speak only the on behalf of my colleagues on september 19, 2015, we introduced ourselves as affordable folks on that date we expressed our concern with the rezoning of divisadero to neighborhood commercial transit district we on that day we expressed our concern of the lack of community input and of affordability and one of the things that we want to touch on today is about the community plan during that time we were working on since that meeting we have colonel together and had over
12:21 am
nine hundred participants and 4 community planned meetings in consideration with the diverse group of individuals from families, renter, owners and neighbors in - on that date during that time we also wanted to express how important to definitely put the community input into part of the planning process. >> during that time after the meeting after all the numerous meetings we've had we also had a proposition to amend the are rezoning district for the
12:22 am
neighborhood transit district in which we applaud however, in that proposition it is still hallow and we feel that we need a more concrete and structured affordability plan and part of rezoning that was done and stay for example, a radio site went from 16 to 60 units 16 to 60 units we feel we need to increase the affordability iq guess the question we're people's if we're going to rezone and increase density why not there the market-rate so we're here today with affordable - with all of
12:23 am
our hard work and committee inputs to give to you for you as the planning commission to consultant to review it. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> i'll pass that on the to the commissioners is there any additional public comment? >> >> that place you under our regular calendar the civic center an informational presentation. >> commissioner president fong commissioners a pleasure to be before you i'm neil the city design group manager for the san andreas fault we're here to provide you with an informational preservation as we
12:24 am
are preparing to initiate the project as you may know well, great cities are made up of great neighborhoods the right density and transportation without a great public realm that provides the opportunity for the community to come together with connection and pride our neighbors neighborhood will be less than and not perform one of our central duties their expressed from through urban design the way those buildings bring life this is why we come together to have the serendipity of the neighbors connection and indeed if you're public spaces fail we're not fulfilling nor meeting the expectation of the visitors and
12:25 am
san franciscans which is why we're here the civic center is the public spaces and experience the greatest diversity of people because of this civic heart and this to our city we are creating a manifest san francisco openness and respect for all where everyone feels good to come here such a the children from criticizing visiting our library and the tenderloin residents take advantage of the open space that is a rare resource in their neighborhood but more the city design group how we plan and destine for the public realm is as important as the design themselves who participant the quality of the meetings with the underlying success we have a comprehensive set of partnerships cross the
12:26 am
city agency with the public realm plan that keep your eyes on the ball public works and mta and public health and real estate, oewd and puc as well as we are committed to holding the most robust political discussions and reach out to all stakeholders from the tenderloin to the cultural to the local business owners to the new residents and their rapidly expanding hub to the south that was no small challenge but we know that plan will only be adopted by the community by this commission and the city with a broad constituency we presented to this commission the departments 4 year program that has the challenges and the citywide response we've outlined 5 initiative in the civic center
12:27 am
is one key element of the heart of initiative this initiative focuses on the core neighborhood about the market street corridor and extend from xhaeshlgs to octavia boulevard those are cultural institutions eyes visitor designations and dpw homes to more of our populations and therefore it deserves the reunite look to better resist reflect your shares closeness and with that, i'll introduce an urban designer the group he'll be managing the public realm and walk you through through the civic center realm plan thank you very much. >> good afternoon nick perry are the planning department staff i'm exist to be here today and to present an early introduction to the public realm plan the goal of presentation to
12:28 am
share the background why we are doing had and the dine challenges we believe looking at and going through consultant and schedule of the plan. as neil mentioned part of the citywide initiative looking at transportation, land use, design, society and economic uses throughout downtown san francisco and the straddles boundary are shown in that image high-minded in blue roughly from market street and to golden gate avenue on the west in yellow the design focus areas and this area encompasses the landmark district shown in red so we know that still the building we're in celebrate it's ken neglect but the civic center can be traced to 1913 that hsa
12:29 am
area as a long history of planning that plan is part of legacy the plan that was ordinarily downey done in 1913 carried under the great depression and the world war ii on the effort in 1943 and another plan in 1958 in terms of this change was the complete reconstruction of civic center improvements city hall to build underground this is the park the plaza design is from 19 61 betsy carmichael after the facilities underground were made the 1980s a series of plans focused on the public realm but the main focus of those plans and the main result the building
12:30 am
facilities simple thai hall and the last major plan was the center happened 20 years ago in 1998 since the 1990s the civically has grown and changed quite a bit a lot of the arts and culture designations have been added the theatre pictured on this slide and a big change occurred the growth of the residential neighborhoods to the south and the middle the conversion of the venice office building as you represented last year the planning department is studying increasing growth in the areas around the market and van ness intersection as i mentioned earlier 2015 was a muslim year for the civic center and the city took on a number of planning efforts to look at the past, present, and future our department looked at
12:31 am
the inventory and gretchen is working with me on that plan the puc did a plan ab an stunt and the playground to be rebuilt not summer and a variety of transportation improvements on the market street and van ness, etc. 9 math plan with planning to look at how we can do share terms to the on the part of central market what is the plan it is bid off the recent plan and create one plan for the long term improvements of the streets like the parks and open spaces as neil mentioned we're part of team leads by the planning department but want this to be a city plan outreach will be very important part of the civic center public
12:32 am
realm plan the civic center has local stakeholders and neighbors users but the city so virtually anyone has a stake the future of the serving so we'll be outreach with a events occurring the late spring of 2016 this year and neighbors and businesses and all cultural organizations and public safety the list going on i won't read that all what constitutes the realm the streets parks and unique spaces of the civic center brooks hall talk about in a second want to focus on the challenges dowdy today as mentioned serving is the city's heart how healthy is it the challenges are on this i belive or building you knowhat widen street design a picture of grove street it has a barrier to the
12:33 am
movement of potentially to be designed nor efficiently and serve period of time better as public safety parking and loading management it is important due to the culture how to better design the spaces like this between the library and asian art museum not just be an a.m. bigger parking area and the in active ground zero they're the structures they are beautiful their historic some of them have really active ground zero and the tweaks through art and through polish for activation with the working with the buildings in the area to yeast a better response between the situations and the art form public and private spaces civic center plaza and fulton between the un plaza those spaces with a
12:34 am
were a ceremonial boulevard if market street to city hall and lack a co-he has plan there is desires and for those how these these spaces should look like we want to with work the community to come up with a co-he has long term plan unwelcoming public spaces most of plays like civic center were the result of places that are welcoming to nobody our goal to create we've come a long way space there are cages the homelessness and the drug use with your building partnerships with the department of public health to understand and create a plan that addresses them the best we can >> streetscape materials the civic center as a city beautiful
12:35 am
the you'll see a patchwork the landscaping working closely with public works and the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the any agency we have a set of standards for what the streets should look like underutilized public assets this is as photo on the right of area covered with the pipe organ to the city expedition i guessed this is underground we want to look at what we can do with the space how to be better utilized maybe storage because of the library what can we do to underground and work with the above ground the civically there is day to day there is the weekly event like the farmers a symphony concerts and the large
12:36 am
events that happen with the prides and the giant world series and on the steps of city hall the public realm needs to function for all those activations we've heard from stakeholders we talk with the outreach is especially important can we can do about lighting while people are traveling to and from public transit those are the challenges now the complaint of the plan the first plan is the life study a thorough observations based on an analysis how people are currently using the space we'll be obviously people how long are they standing, etc. to inform design efficiency the future another component street design working with the public works for the standards and the
12:37 am
transportation infrastructure working closely with mta to figure out how to best design the streets focus areas for the conceptual designs the bright yellow those are areas we want to work with the designers to have the conceptual plans civic center plaza and the area around the union square and also looking at how to better activate this and some of the alleyways and finally franklin intersection we see a western pathway to the center in addition to looking at the facade guidelines but who are the steward for the area and how can we design spaces and how to build those relationship with the plans in process and implementation strategyably
12:38 am
with the community to prioritize the improvements we've designed what are the phase one to try to identify the funding sources for right off the bat this is critical the review and looking a full environmental impact report will it is up for the quicker plan the schedule of the plan january to april we'll finalize the scope and contracting and may into the fall existing life studies with the conceptual design will occur in the fall and welcome to the moving on and review in early spring to late spring of 2017 we are the environmental design brings us to the plan adoption in 2019 this is tentative and as i said outreach will be onramp and robust throughout the schedule that concludes my
12:39 am
presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> opening it up for public comment i have one speaker card james. >> mr. president, some of you know i've been involved with everybody or everything the civic center for the last thirty years i'm delighted to be hereafter decades of need not and two years ago made the decision to fund this project and reason to building he'll continue to support this large-scale project when i mention neglect it is inadequate treatment. >> how the public has treated the civic center almost the last 50 years i want to share a letter he sent to rec and park last october in which i want to
12:40 am
share with you the they're what i call one hundred years of responsibility and 50 years of need not this give us detail as to all the steps that weren't taken over the years now, some of you may say neglect how can you say that we've spent millions of dollars rebuilding the civically that's the point civically is not city hall it is not the opera house it is a planned grouping of monumental building that around the country only san francisco actually accomplished it we have the greatest collection of monumental buildings outside of washington, d.c.
12:41 am
and this attribute is one of the reasons for the network o network people don't understand it you saw the 1915 plan that's the plan that is embedded the historic dedication so today, if you want to do this for the library and courthouse you have to give credence to the agricultural qualifies and hope use the sierra granite in city hall and this project is going to need to take into account the plazas and it's original design was part of historic plan and so i brought to your attention to indicate that this
12:42 am
project after all those years of neglect not only with the supportive of mayor, we have the support of this department i'm sure we have and everyone else and in order to make the civic center become a welcoming place for everyone thanks >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i'm delighted to see this come forward we have interesting building we've spent a lot of time crafting them, however, the stakes that hold it together is not quite there i agree with mr. house i thank him for being here this is the most equivalent to the washington mall, however, the siege of buildings at that scale is pretty unique and
12:43 am
different from other places in the united states i would hope that we will find a way to involve stakeholders who benefit from those grants that is the federal government that is the state government with states officers and curt ord a large part of the where we are and hope we can even find mutual benefits with participation wear searching to embrace the responsibility for to large space i hope the voices of the historic preservation commission and whatever appropriate roles anyone that is interested in the history of this particular space will be participants and stakeholder i congratulate the department starting every and it is okay to be vetted. >> i want to thank the staff this is long overdue and good to
12:44 am
focus bring the civic center back to the matter of san francisco interesting the cafe that was before this hearing it was a great photo from 1933 you see the garden and landscaping the center of courtyard and it was the center of the city looking forward to that. >> ms. perkins how you'll survey the first phases many different users from all hours of the day and will quickly change. >> how will you who is there now and who will be there in to the future >> dpw the scope and hire a consultant we're calling a civic policy study like in fisherman's wharf a large amount of people doing calculations we pick the
12:45 am
spaces and do the observations and create a report the observation from early morning and civic center until 11:00 p.m. at integrals to get a snapshot and in the past it is quicker creditors but wooefrl we're looking at how to get an accurate picture we'll probably do that one week day and one weekend and one farmer's market. >> look forward to updates. >> commissioner antonini. >> an amazing collections of buildings by ms. haas the best outside of washington, d.c. i think this is important to keep whatever it done contextual it
12:46 am
the chourts was built 20 years ago if my memory serves me and fits in well were that he have need twenty-four hour activation maybe go to school with other cities like washington, d.c. and see how they keep the areas clean and inviting all hours of day and night because the united nations mr. mayor's is okay. if there are event but other than that i'll often avoid going through that he and coma different way walk foster from bart to muni to get to city hall because a nice trip and the same is true the streets have grown mcallister and fulton but privately owned by maybe a private-public partnership will work to try to incentivize
12:47 am
business owners to eliminate the fast food places and the thing not the best uses and instead go for more neighborhood serving types of use and designation restaurants things like that that activate the areas after dark and then we have to come up with something on that part of fulsome we have the monument in the middle of the street but certainly we can i think that is important to leave the planted areas the one areas where they are they serve a lot of uses people are police vehicle placing soccer and people don't have open space it is close to where we live and an important using to that area right there the late standards need to be replaced historic light have put in more historic lighting
12:48 am
because their historic didn't mean you scant generate more light but the standards you get more lighting with a nicer looking situation the pipe organ has to go somewhere maybe back to bill graham but put back into use in some way the other thing you should work with mta this is something that the way off the future maybe supervisor wiener who i see is here has this in his plan and assess tote west everybody thinks the subway will go geary any fulsome to bring it it the richmond didn't have to fellow fulsome but if you have some open spaces that could serve as a future station in any of overseeing areas that might not worthy keeping in mind this is
12:49 am
probably going to take a long time you'll complete our renovations but consider something assess through those areas it is a wonderful plan and i want to help in any way i automatic commissioner hillis. >> that's correct i know working in this i belive and the plaza is not the nicest of experience it is walking through it is amazing you go down to hayes and there is civic center and part of issue trying to figure out why this is and kind of balancing the historic nature of that with making it useful scaleable kind of space that feels like it can be used so good luck. >> (laughter) and hopefully, your plan didn't end up in 5 years on the list of
12:50 am
plans on the shelf but i have a question on why is the eir taking two years to do seems you're not doing major you know seems like why two years for an eir that is we're not building big buildings or changing street patterns continue.
12:51 am
12:52 am
>> with no response or action by our city as preserved by the
12:53 am
residents we all want save buildings this is important for the neighborhood and tablet living in the buildings that are forced to live below any standard we want people to live in too often code violations happen this is by repeated complaint by blighted conditions and too often the ignore the property violation one challenge that are calibrated code inspection lacks the communication among the numerous departments involved this can leave - in addition the departments appear to be resistant to pursue the
12:54 am
reinforcement is it so difficult to track what is going on with the complaints with various departments the system simply isn't working for the neighborhood or residents along with supervisor cowen he held an oversight hearing where the building housing health fire and planning department all reported on the respect code compliant procedures where we as a city can improve our situations after the hearing i began to work on this legislation that is currently pending before the board the legislation amend the planning code for better tools for law enforcement along with the planning for the portion before you today, the passage of legislation moving forward a number of other things to put it into context it gives of department of building inspection to clear an explicit
12:55 am
authority to suspended outline open predicaments are with that history of repeated visitation from the right in recidivism there was a serious ongoing violation that permit was superintendant food bank for all the other permits kept going and the dbi could shut down the entire project it includes the code compliant process for building and fire and health department with the noiktsdz to taking administrator action and referring the problematic cases to the city attorney's office in addition the legislation for planning and the other departments for the first time it empowers the city attorney to take action of a referral from a did that is not happening we've seen egregious violations that
12:56 am
are - even though the city attorney knows the city attorney can't take action in addition it creates a code compliant resolving loan fund based on money i was able to object for low interest loans to bring the buildings up to code and in addition to granting the city attorney's office the power to proceed even though even the absence of a referral the legislation also requires quarterly reporting on code compliant activities we - there are real impacts on the neighborhoods in my district i know my colleagues would say same thing neighbors know about something where nothing or little is happening we get involved and something starts to happen it shouldn't take a
12:57 am
number of the board of supervisors to spur things on it should just happen this legislation will move us in a positive direction i ask for your support i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> >> thank you. >> okay. any questions for the supervisor while he's here if not open up for public comment. >> yeah. i'll wait around for a little while oar opening it up for public comment sorry staff. >> if i can finish the staffs recommendations the - commissioners this is to clarify and improve the format activities waltzed will as well as the city attorney's office with the e gregarious enforcement cases with the two enforcement bodies lastly the department seize the reporting requirement as an additional tool this can aid in the allocation of resources for
12:58 am
those activities and to one last item i'm providing here a version of ordinance you must have this in your position before making and motion planning department staff has reviewed that and we see no difference between that version and the draft version that concludes my presentation. and also here for questions. >> thank you. >> okay opening it up for public comment if there is any. >> good afternoon, commissioners moscone my name is star child an attorney for san francisco it sounds like a technical measure but i'm somewhat
12:59 am
concerned of the things i don't know how much worse in terms of the you know cracking down on all of a sudden code violations a million things happening the city is the housing and people throwing things on the street and jaywalking and driving over the speed limit if their milkly stooped duo tomorrow the city would come to a halt thousands of people would be out in the city with no place to live that is homeless and less safe with exposure to crime and other kinds of things so you know, i would remind you thousands of people living on the streets even with the illegal situations in in-law units that give people
1:00 am
a place to live insider when upward of 6 or 7 thousand people our priority should be making as many inside places to live of not perfectly 100 percent save by whatever arrest tray thing to talk about you have to compare to the status quo you know someone has a roof over they're heading head maybe the building is not up to code or whatever but better than that sleeping out through the over pass i hope the legislation take into account didn't add a bunch of extra enforcement making people's lives worse. >> is there any additional public comment? >> public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore you i want to commend supervisor wiener so far taking this
1:01 am
finally and bringing it forward i've asked questions about that many years ago when supervisor chiu was still representing my district that is very easy to watch many of the instances you're describing there typical in many neighborhoods i couldn't be more delighted to wholeheartedly support this legislation and giving us the ability for code compliant and including stressing the cooperation and communication between departments that is one big area where things have terribly failed i've found myself as an example ♪ situation a vision of violation of a non-permitted deck the inspector came out as i was asking his or her whether the fire escape was not y where it needs to be the answer was
1:02 am
that's not my responsibility and that's the end of that and the fire escape landing is not fixed about two years ago that is the lack of communication and coordination i'm delighted to support this >> commissioner vice president richards. >> so much this is a huge usage step forward i applaud you for bringing this commissioner president fong and i have a communicating conversation the top was enforcement happy to see that come before us i have a get supervisor if i may please. >> thank you would this apply to short-term rentals the reason i'm asking we had a case before us three weeks before on pollutant street 3 unit taken off the market for 23
1:03 am
years i turned to the zoning administrator after 3 years of notice of violations to the owner she took this down and brought it up finally the department talked here into trying to legalize it as a hotels okay. what kind of fin over 23 years. >> the zoning administrator said you can't fine her yes yet with that kind of case go to the city attorney. >> i as you may know i've been pushing to ramp up enforcement of short-term rentals and mr. star talked about this. >> from my recollection during the short-term rentals this language was put the admin code to deal with that. >> great, great excellent. >> a couple of other things
1:04 am
maybe your thoughts you and i had a conversation of the level of fines we had heard a case where someone demolished a building on friday and fined them a whooping thousand dollars. >> how much. >> one thousand we have a san francisco historic preservation commission about the insignificant trees along state trees 16 ak but the scope of the entire project that was i had developers tell me fines do you have any additional thoughts on you said this be one piece of a larger sit e set of legislation to look at the fines. >> yes. we've been doing and brought this issue to our office we presenter that we've been working with the city attorney
1:05 am
it is tricky under state law with the fine get too high it is illegal in terms of process encompassed the fine so we were work with the city attorney on this that is more implicated by but i share our desire to make sure the fine is sufficient to deter the behavorial and so you know tear down outline alleyway the healthy trees and pay the fine at the cost of doing business we don't want that. >> when i don't put a quarter the meter and get a $72 ticket how many thousand dollars the public draws those conclusions the other question i have on thoughts of a complaint based system or more a controlled
1:06 am
based enforcement we wait for a complaint to come in and get logged into the system and any thoughts on maybe i think we have a sign inadvertent that is more active based enforcement tagged the signs that were illegal any thoughts on those having some type of more expansion of a control or active based system. >> it is a balance yes, we don't want to be completely reliant on complaints for enforcement i know for example, dbi don't regular health inspectors with that proactively and the illegal billboards was another example to, yes nor pro-active enforcements with that said, when you look at the massive specimen of code
1:07 am
violations the buildings and i think complaints are always going to be a key part of enforcement. >> it is interesting i met that sarah jones the environmental review officer the program we're moving in that direction i guess being called monitoring so 5 years ago you promise to have 5 car share spaces we want to make sure they're there i think that is a way to go but certainly make sure that it is a deterrent it is a fantastic piece of legislation. >> i agree varies degrees of approval it is important to make sure that the developers are good and you're right car share has not always been endorsed. >> zoning administrator
1:08 am
anything. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> yeah. that is wonderful legislation, too, and i think one of the positive important things is the coordination between the agency see heart attacks to the day i was going out i called the city when i saw the proliferation if you want to have a police box you need to talk to the police for the paint and dpw for light signals and subsequent all those things were stakeholder under a branch finally and have a much more efficient system and put some teeth a judgment against one of the graffiti vandals moshgs the other thing i like is the power
1:09 am
of it being initiated from different ways with the city attorney investing as well as the planning department if do not where it comes from and keeping with the comments from commissioner vice president richards i hope a way to set up a non-complaint driven inspectors i know that is a huge thing and to deference to the public speaker regardless of income level everyone should be afforded a safe environment to live in a lot of times you drive by places unlike thirty or 40 years they look reasonable okay. but when you go inside you see the continues conditions the wiring is terrible the plumbing you know everything is bad about the insides and you know this is why we see a lot of catastrophic
1:10 am
fires a lot to be done but hopefully that is a step in the right direction. >> okay supervisor. >> i agree the goal not to constituted i shut down did building but to get them into compliance for example, around math and octavia there are so many egregious violations people getting stabbed in to the hallway and a series of things the tenants are there but the city came down on the owners a situation many any district this was first got us interested in the issue of grant view an esteem harroweder situation it neighborhood different e departments went outburst but ultimately we got adult
1:11 am
protective services and got the guy into alternative housing and red-tagged the house so we don't want people to be homeless. >> thank you, supervisor i know of instances if rh z they're not cleaned up and why are they no sold none has answers that is very helpful in solving some the problems thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to ask one question if i may the fact the systemic people thirng think they're safe so they get a permit for remodeling a bathroom in the meanwhile need 5 other permits that are not declared do you
1:12 am
have mechanisms to address that including filing under false presence a number of cases people are asking for renovation and indeed it turns out to be a demolition and in that area i think particular focus on redefining the criteria and having the enforcement will be helpful. >> yeah. we know interest is some work being done around the issue of what is really a demolition and so i'm supportive of sort of changing those rules supervisor avalos has legislation possible having an amendment to that that is a positive thing and in terms of people who apply for the whereon minor permit but doing a bigger one that is about dbi inspections and they do do those inspections they'll have
1:13 am
to do that all maybe i'll add when we're aware of something doing that dbi has a process someone exceeds the scope their assessed the penalty 3 times of the permit and someone works without a permit 9 times the fee so a penalty system in place to deal with that certainly can be some improvements but working closely with them. >> in addition to recognizing support i'd like to move to approve. >> second. >> recommend approval. >> commissioner antonini. >> i was going to do the same thing. >> i'm sorry supervisor one more quick question the reporting back to the city zoning administrator brought up interesting things do you envision the report a number of complaints or number of permits
1:14 am
without scaping the scope and i mean how do you envision the report. >> it's a matter of having that regular transparency and affordability so we can see from the department has a whole bunch of complaints but it will be easy to see that on a quarterly basis what's happening i know the planning department some departments make more referrals to the city attorney's office than others one department in particular makes almost never ever refers so they haven't referred anything you know we want to make sure you have that kind of transparency. >> thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks i'm supportive i want to learn more about the resolving loan fund how it will be used and the connected of
1:15 am
what types of cases. >> a work in process the station kr5e9s it as a general matter we've been meeting with the departments and also to get to talk about it actually, the original idea for the resolving loan fund came from go deborah walker and we got that money $4 million because in our last budget we were going to be slashing building permits fees because the surplus was getting to a want that was too much we cut the fees and took the $4 million in reserve for this purpose i think we're working with different. departments to flush that auto u out and people are ideas are open we want to insure it is you know they shouldn't be huge loans but sometimes that is 5 or 10 or $15,000 to do the
1:16 am
work if you don't do it at an interest rate that is lower than the bank making that as easy and possible and with the repayments with the small business resolving loans all the details have not yielded been worked out yet. >> that's correct. >> only that motion. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> and place us on item 10 for case be octavia street a conditional use authorization.
1:17 am
>> good afternoon commissioner president fong planning department staff the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to have a appreciatively service doing business as wilson properties within the hayes valley commercial transit district the project sponsor wants to remove the garage and install a storefront the proposed tenant with the prospers is a locally owned management company to date the department has innovate received any comment building the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons the proposed business a locally owned company that will operate with members of the public operations are consistent with the definition of the professional service uses which are retail uses if provide
1:18 am
service to the community the project will remove off-street with ground floor use that is more consistent with the policies of the commercial district with the storefront is a high material that is consistent with the hectic building and the historic district it meets all applicable codes and the project is compatible that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> >> great, thank you. >> opening it up for public comment i'm sorry project sponsor please. i'm the architect i thought i'd say i happen to be a member of hayes valley i live there as well first of all, the parking is pretty unusable technical for cars but not useful and instead of the storefront activates the
1:19 am
street in keeping with hayes valley and that's my primary point if you have any questions. >> we may. >> opening it up for public comment if there is any. >> good afternoon, commissioners members of the public star child that the libertarian party of san francisco as the case i urge you to approve that project people fundamentally should have the right to do what we want with their property that is a concept that people don't hear everyday but it is good to remind people that the basic truth of the matter of ownership once again if it didn't mean anything it takes the society down the road
1:20 am
to the kind of situation with third world countries the economy is stagnate you have to go through an endless you know paying people off basically here it is anymore systematic people's right to know how that looks like like the united states in mexico you pay bribes toe people police officers and others and it is sort of a little bit of money harley and the system is rigged to extort you know it is first to the government didn't have to deal with that so as a matter of fact where i'm going with that if people own a piece of property and they're paying more taxes than people in rent you know it really begs the
1:21 am
question do you even own the property or everyone just raent from a landlord or the government and paying prashgs i know i'm saying it behooves the government to be a better landlord and not impose restrictions on what their tenants you know so-called owners can do for the property owners and people working on this project i'll only is, please you know remember this hearing whether it goes our way but 10 or 5 years from now if anyone want to open up a store you don't like it and somebody else wants to do something else we've been there she have the rights to do what we want with their property. >> is there any public comment public comment is closed. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i like this project i think
1:22 am
that activates good space and improvements over the conditions and supports the general plan to the public commenter i think there are nuances in what rights people can do with their property i'm not sure mr. star child the city wants to go into a hog farm next to our business and creates a smell i didn't enterprise i think you'll have an issue with that okay. >> anyway, i think there are limitations and the conditional use process works i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he had a question on this i think that is a good project has anybody pulled the renters how they feel about losing their garages is that question come up. >> i owned the building. >> sir come up to the
1:23 am
microphone. >> i've owned the building 25 years and there's no car in the garage it is 80 feet longing and narrow that is multi at an democrat people will have to share keys. >> very narrow. >> yes. it didn't have sexual u value not function with the building i've opposed the building for 25 years never a car. >> it can't be used not practical far more than one car and probably you know is make sense. >> the other thing we had did public merging and the tenants are excited to have something friendly and active. >> thank you. >> theshgsz a motion that's been seconded commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore
1:24 am
commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under our discretionary calendar for item 11 green street this is a discretionary review and as stated earlier, one of the dr requests and withdrawn we're left with one dr. >> good afternoon. i'm david lindsey a car addition at the time rear end of the single-family home the project also includes a new terrace at the rear and a new roof deck 10 stair penthouse above the
1:25 am
excited roof the property between vera did care and broderick the house on a thirty foot by 137 deep lot that slopes from green street the street also slopes downward from east to west the opposite block is 3 story single-family homes and rh1 both immediately adjacent sorry both the buildings are third story over basement single-family homes i could mention since the commission packets were sent out lake the department got two additional letters of support from the neighbors and from the cal hallow association in opposition to the project and i'll hand oslethose letters aro.
1:26 am
>> as joosz mentioned inform requests for the discretionary review one was withdrawn today, the one that remains was submitted by sarah and quinton who live at 224 green street east of the property and represented by stephen williams the goggling advances concerns as outlined in their dr request building the rear addition will block air quality to their property and the roof deck will effect the privacy of adjacent neighbors i'll point out that
1:27 am
following the submittal the project sponsor did rice the project so the proposed power point structure is reduced in size in footprint and envelope and the plans in your packet reflect this the project was reviewed by the rdt are the following the submittal of the drs and found the project didn't contain are create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and the marge's the penthouse was reduced in november and appropriate and consistent with the cal hallow angina guidelines the rear will not unremarkable effect the air quality of the adjacent properties the proposed rear addition respect the folks
1:28 am
setback beyond that and the steps down to the air quality to the property not take dr and approve the project as revised. >> okay dr requester. >> thank you good afternoon commissioner president fong and anybody's i'm steve williams i represent the folks next door live there for 14 years two children were born in f that house this is a rare thing the buildings are commentary investments at exhibit 1 a strong expression of a demolition pure façadism every parish or pay attention and interior wall the rear facade is gone and the west and east facade as well the replacement structure is very large it goes back into the rear yard
1:29 am
more than 20 feet as measured in grade to the top of the penthouse more than 50 feet tall it is a little bit surprising the department reviewed that as an awe besides dr given the fact anything of that size built into american people existing neighborhood will trigger a more close review the negative impacts on the neighbors are observes their asked to limit the building and to maintain the now existing side setback an oufbt fact the proposed plan did not comply with either one of those requirements as and so forth by the department i don't think so what happened with this when the project was first reviewed by mr. lindsey and donna i did not attach that will you found a
1:30 am
note and sketch that was done by mr. lindsey i'm quoting need to maintain the setback from the east to allow the neighborhoods connection to the mid block and ground floor and full width to point of average the adjacent rear wall and drew a punish or picture what that looks like i'll offer that to the commission from the look at the exhibit 2 the formal notice of planning department requirement letter that went out it says the same thing gives the project sponsor an option on the rear yard extension but clearly maintain even though existing setback i highlighted that on page 2 of the exhibit 2 and cal hallow reviewed that i highlighted their check the box they said the same thing though the respectfully the rear yard and setback we need to limit the
1:31 am
push out and a on the east and to an average the project sponsor then wrote in response it is more than a year but wrote back that's exhibit 4 it says specifically we have averaged between the adjacent buildings and if you look at the brief that was submitted by mr. ruben in too different places in the brief if thank you look at only page 3 of the brief he says as to the rear yard the proposed rear yard extends to the average of the two buildings with the residential gaelz 0 cal hallow guidelines on the next page contrary to the modest extension that goes no further than the average two adjacent building and respect the mid block open space not true from mire brief
1:32 am
that they made a mistake they made and i an error just got 20/20 new folks in the depended they dropped the ball and the two power houses used to getting what we want from the department they didn't enforce the department asked for no an average but a full average if you been look at if i could have the overhead please that is the sheet the doted line is the alleged average however, they crossed the property to get to the bay window over here to something that is not a qualifying wall under the planning code and if you look at the notes from mr. lindsey he said the average is as opposed to be done
1:33 am
at all levels of the new extension they're offering something not average at two levels this project as a minimum has not complied with what it is supposed to do average and respect the side setting back setback and exhibit 6 thai eliminate feet of side setbacks at every level let's at least for the folks that plan that yard maintain that sobriety like the department said i'm surprised it came forward after i submitted my brief those are objective facts violations of the planning code and violations of everyone that looked at the project so i urge you send this back make them average and correct the averaging and
1:34 am
maintain the side setbacks thank you. >> okay speakers in support of dr requester not seeing any, whoops. >> i again, look at this thing the packet i didn't catch that based on any experience if noah valley and what i've been talking about over a year i think that what mr. williams said resonated especially the designation calculations that as real problem people are aware of the department i don't have a secretary general i don't know those people but everything resonated. >> any other speakers no right of the dr requester not seeing any, project sponsor. >> good evening commissioner
1:35 am
president fong and members of the commission mr. lindsey that is sitting in for the director i'm jim with reuben, junius & rose and represent the project sponsor and the architect sponsor himself is here losing i'm sorry lisa is here in case any questions the most important i've not seen a brief if steve williams and wondering up through this moment what in their questions and requirement because we thought we met them i don't know where that brief went but not to my office as far as i know it is hard for us 0 responds to a brief we've not seen nevertheless, that project doesn't warnlt a discretionary
1:36 am
review and louis will do his best to talk about this we're pleased we resolved one of the dr requester and one of the neighbors we talked with you can't please all the people but one reasonable neighbor talked to others so we got something reasonable so louis address this even though we don't have the brief. >> good afternoon, members i'm louis the architect. 2626 green i have up on the screen i think an important graphic that helps explain noble the specifics of this project buses the relationship of how e houses on this block i'd like to mention that we certainly building that we have complooimd compiled with all planning codes and work hard so if there's a
1:37 am
question ended to answer that that is an effort we made and up on the screen as you can see the subject property on the right shaded of the notes you see outlined by itself white line the lower floor addition and the gray as the extension to that living room that is how we did the averaging the averaging comes across from the mid point to the end point of this house the house of the west is very tall with a big white wall and the area ferry 20 feet past the subject property and stay against that wall and stay away from the folks wall tote est again, the way we alfred from the set point of folks property and you'll see the lightwell discussion that is at the east side between the two buildings
1:38 am
that addition was done with very close correspondence with the planning department and respect not only the goggling have an windo against - the houses tend to collide the goggling advances house close - this house it has no exposure to mid block open space in i go off to the west you'll see this house is the third house enjoys the enclosure and
1:39 am
as does it's counterpart think union street and to the specific situation the property to the east enjoys the largest east west open spaces the block and because of saw tooth manner t see impose on a diagonal in this direction before this block it is more of a recipient of the mid block open space with any other house we've meet the letter of the code in that respect i'll show you one more graphic with the penthouse this is the revised penthouse further reduced from what you see in your packet in the happy resolution from the two people across the street and i want to show you this in case it is something you want to include the proceedings or not p.s.
1:40 am
speakers in support of the dr requester >> that is on this dr requester only on 2626 green street. >> dr requester a two minute rebuttal. >> the response was we didn't do our homework and gym ruben didn't send me a brief my brief was the packet just as his is pardon me he didn't look at or read the packet i pulled up ms. butler and tell him the problems the building was not in compliance with the
1:41 am
mandatory requirement the planning department sent out he said i'll get back with you that's the last i heard of him i'm here to actually have the code enforced i'm not talking about credit residential guidelines but the correct way it average as you can see from exhibit 5 they cross the half of the lot more than half the lot and the neighbors to get to the bay window to average to that bay window that's not the correct method of averaging not a qualifying wall under the planning code and that's the specific code section i've studied it and printed and in complete the brief there is a photograph of what their averaging from on page of in my brief i quote the fact that in order to be a qualifying wall in which to take the
1:42 am
average the wall this is a to be half as wide as the lot the wall from which their qualifying is 15 feet wide that has to be at least 17 and a half feet wide in order to satisfy the planning code for average and so cal hallow told them to average the planner told them to average their claimed their averaging it is not true completely inaccurate this project needs to be sent back i'm sorry jim didn't read his packet no excuse for pushing and violates every memo. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you you have two minute rebuttal project sponsor. >> planning department staff
1:43 am
supports the project the averaging was done correctly i'm sure mr. lindsey will talk about this we included did shadow stooitsdz studies the packet to talk about the current shadow and provenlg shadow will not change it is the same elements of light and air are available to the gogglialavans okay. tha you. >> public comment is closed. and opening up to commissioner commissioner antonini. >> yeah. this project clearly didn't have a negative fetish on the decreasing to the southeast, east and south not impede on their life enrichment committee it will be the same their light and air will be it is i believe
1:44 am
union street so what is in question i'll ask mr. lindsey is the averaging done correctly? >> well average didn't come into the discussion here because this is other than rh1 zoning district and a straight 25 percent. >> averaging - as long as you do the rear yard satisfy that then you don't necessarily have to average. >> the averaging comment came from sort of a standard we'll use in a situation like that there is a transitional building between a deeper and shorter building and the staff the residential guidelines generally says expend the adjacent building to the average of the two, that can be achieved in a couple of ways achieved by having the hole building extend to the half hour point or the building the bulk or the massing
1:45 am
the of the building against the deeper building and shorter along the shorter building achieved in a number of ways. >> that's not a code guideline. >> i did the math looks like they have a 40 percent rear yard because the depth is one and 37 feet and remain with 43 or 44 i did the math they're well beyond the 25 percent that is required and also it seems to me that the sobriety is 14 feet and most of it at least 5 foot 10 setback from the adjacent property that the dr requesters it is far more than that is ever required any project that are built so - this thing does a lot of good things it is a downward slope it drops
1:46 am
20 feet from the street makes the height of the rear less than a factor you're coming off of a lower base i guess they have been a stair penthouse approved the neighborhood that is essentially the same height as this one so i don't see too many reasons to take dr i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner hillis i'm in agreement community-based i don't see something exceptional or extraordinary the architect talked about the massing it is respectful of both neighbors putting more of the massing and setting backing away from the dr requester and toward do taller blank equal to the west i agree
1:47 am
with the architect how it is a difference of lot configuration the project sponsor has a deeper lot than the dr requester but i think you respected that in you know the addition is done well to give the dr requester the ability to have that from the mid block open space so alleviates nothing extraordinary. >> commissioner moore. >> that is a large building i appreciate you clarified the rh1 rule i had the same question one issue and you referred me that is the roof deck on the top and it is pofshl intrusion of privacy and i would ask that we look at the drawing a through 6 and looking at the elevation on
1:48 am
a-34 a window on 6236 going the fact that the deck comes all but way to the edge of the building allows a looking at into the properties i prefer to avoid i see this again and again as identifying the city will appreciate if we hold back from to those demising lines they interfere so i suggest to pull the building back from the west side by h4 feet and forward looking at into the adjacent building that puts the deck directly over the demising line of the - which holds the deck
1:49 am
back from the rear wall of the proposed building are you following what i'm trying to is drawing 26, roof deck and proposed elevation a dashed window for which shows the window on 266 green i suggest that we pull the deck away from the outside edges of the building pull it back 4 feet in alignment with the chimney necessary from the north rear walls otherwise the building is fine and i ask that we take considering to make that adjustment with respect to consistently reminder of what others require. >> i'm not sure i understand maybe so i understand the lines or is this not the right- and i
1:50 am
drew it 4 feet back from the chimney on the west side 4 feet away from the edge and 4 feet from the north in order to keep people off the edge of the building and look into the jane people's windows. >> you're referring to the roof deck and the windows only. >> that's correct. >> i can second that motion it seems reasonable we have a pretty good-sized deck other decks on other parts of house i think affords more privacy not a bad idea i want to ask mr. lindsey to comment briefly on the this project not being a demolition once people brought that up it might be instructive it didn't seem to a demolition
1:51 am
i'll take our word for it. >> commissioners the sheet it has a table 3 tables actually. >> could you speak into the microphone it's hard. >> on sheet a .1.8 by the architect the department reviews from the planning code 317 to make sure the project is not a demolition but rather an alteration so it gives the maximum so it makes that clear for future reference think some of these projects maybe challenged they're below the standards. >> it's a standard with major alterations for staff to request
1:52 am
the calculations to compare them to the thresholds. >> okay. thank you. >> i'd like to if i can during the closed proceedings have azusa with the lady if that is possible. >> the discussion needs to occur if you want to change it once they make a motion and adopt that condition that's what you're stuck with. >> i've made a motion but if mr. butler has a question to what i've suggested let's do. >> i have a request i don't know if you can do that modify your motion in 3 ways as just explain it i'll try to respond. >> we need room on the west side for the penthouse so start of offset not on the railing but we need to have at least four or five feet for the door to swing
1:53 am
into the roof deck. >> if i read your notes are correct west is west, east is unchanged and house is here and north of there. >> the issue at hand the proposed agreement shifted the location of that door to the west by four or five feet. >> i can only look at what i have in front of me that is what i comment on the issue of privacy is important if you could give me the drawings. >> i can't see it here. >> the drawing is on the screen. >> so there's the drawing you see the penthouse was moved further east now and so it actually, the door lines up with the west side of the roof deck i'm asking for is consistent with what you're proposing with
1:54 am
3 modifications because the four feet four feet reduces the roof deck by thirty or 33 percent 3 feet on the west, 3 feet on the north and 4 by 4 foot section at the door to allow someone to leave the penthouse and assess the deck. >> if you would draw it please i can't see that to comment.
1:55 am
>> she wants a setback on the west side exactly. >> along with the chimney yes. >> i drew it wrong 3 feet on the north side. >> what is the reason for 3 instead of 4. >> just because it reduced the rjd by 35 percent a big reduction so i prefer it to be 25 percent that is what i'm proposing instead of the 3 feet if the offset the fire code is a nice number for the setback. >> i'm comfortable with that. >> as a seconder i'll agree the setback will be 3 feet from the north and west sides if i'm correct. >> that's correct i thought
1:56 am
you were worried about the odds my reference to the arrow shown the drawing. >> okay commissioner vice president richards and i guess mr. lindsey want to make sure have you looked at the calculations the reason i'm asking we've done an audience audit inform september but permanent a training issue and 2 of 5 fails the audit there was indeed an audit i want to make sure your comfortable with those calculations. >> commissioners i did not personally review those. >> as motion i'd like to ask mr. lindsey to double check the calculations to make sure it is not a demo. >> i'll accept that as part of motion. >> that's fine it looks okay
1:57 am
to me. >> call the question. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there's there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve the project as proposed with the modifications to the roof deck only and the railing associated with the roof deck to set it back from the edge of the building 3 feet own the west and north side and for staff to confirm the doma demo. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 12 27th avenue an abbreviated discretionary review. >> one more then we have - >> good afternoon again
1:58 am
commissioners i'm david lindsey department staff. >> the project at 156, 27th avenue the major alteration of a single-family home with the replacement felt front facade a horizon addition at the rear and a new fourth destroyer if so at an monument to demolition and pursuant to the planning code 317 the zoning administrator reviewed the project and authorized the administrative de facto demolition that the subject property is not financial assessable housing the subject property on the east side of 27th avenue between lake and el camino the outdoor richmond neighborhoods the 1907 house is on a one hundred 20 feet deep lot the zoning is rh1
1:59 am
bedrooms on the rage from two to four stories buildings on the opposite are two and 4 stories the house immediately north of the subject property a 4 story building and the one immediately south is a 4 story the department received 9 attorneys letters in support and 6 in opposition the dr requesters are who own the house immediately south of the subject property their concerns are that the project is not consistent with the residential design guidelines with respect to light and air and it's impacts on the mid block open space following the submittal of the dr requester the residential design team reviewed it in the advisory committee of the dr request and included that the
2:00 am
okay with the guidelines and didn't exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the proposed setback of the rear addition along the property line is adequate to have adverse impacts to the department of human resources property it is appropriate setback from the front to rear i'll point out since the dr was submit the project has been revised further in an effort to address concerns the departments supports it and recommend e recommend the commission not take dr and go as revised. >> dr requester. >> i'm going to use the overhead if i can please. >> once you start speaking sfgov there you go. >>


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on