tv [untitled] October 21, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT
11:00 pm
have more to question later. commissioner moore: i want to go through some other technical issues just to clarify of what this project is trying to set up to do. i found commissioner miguel's observations precise, because in many types, it speaks about a sleeping loft. that is what the drawing says. the code is very clear that you cannot -- the minimum height above the loft level has to be 7 feet. aloft at stevenson is only four feet, using a line drawing and not a working drawing. it is enough to say it is not 7 feet. the maximum area of the loft is
11:01 pm
limited to no more than one- third of the area of where it is located. all of the lawsuits appear to exceed that amount. in order to fulfil the function of being a bedroom. it raises a number of questions. the furniture templates used in this drawing are accurate to the amount of space you need for a sofa, a credenza, a tv, a chair, etc. it is the limitations of this building where you could potentially design a smaller unit. but the dimensions do not say enough to make it happen. commissioner miguel asked how you get a bed in here. it does not really allow for a bed. unless you have collapsible furniture in which to put in front of your door. i am being sarcastic, but it speaks particularly on the
11:02 pm
smaller units where are you -- or if you are in these houses, you are asking people to take a sleeping bag and roll it up and live with this new constrained condition that is not legal. that is one aspect. i do not have anything against the building. i want to be upfront about that. i appreciate the effort you made to explain the voskhod -- explain the facade. there is an effort to show how you can do it. there is another building that is completely missing the point. i want to make another comment so that we can say figuring out whether or not this building would require redesign.
11:03 pm
it is something we do not know. i want to use an area which we are always really on top of. ada and fire safety requirements. the access to the elevators in both parts of the building, stephenson and gentry, does not meet building code requirements because the elevator doors are not to open into an exit passageway. the way that is normally solved is that you, in multi-unit low- rise buildings, you have to provide a way to outsource the swinging door, in case of fire, which closes in front of the elevators so that elevators do not become smokestacks. in this particular case, because
11:04 pm
the corridor is so narrow, you need 1.5 times the weight in order for people to have free passage when the door closes. you do not have that here. do you follow what i'm saying? in the building code section 102.3.5, it shows how that is done. you cannot fix this because the corridors are too narrow. i want to stick with another observation. not just for the entrance and the exits, but it also holds for unit access regarding ada. it is really important that the code is clear on that. you have to understand what it means. if you are on a wheelchair on the slight side of the door, you need, i think, 18 inches in order to allow for you to open the door and moved in.
11:05 pm
that is from the entrance as well as on the unit doors. if you do not have that, you do not have the thing to hold and for us not in and a wheelchair -- for those of us not in a wheelchair, you might get your hand caught. it is too close to the door and the wall, and that is not shown here. this building is so tightly designed around the columns, that the building does not provide that. to redesign that would require everything on the internal life out to be changed, which will be very difficult if not impossible. somebody said to me, where are you going with this? the reason i am taking the technical side of the discussion is, we do not have any standards, not in the
11:06 pm
residential guidelines, the neighborhood discussions, about what constitutes have ability and livability. it is partially addressed in the chapters of the building code, which deal with health and safety. the overriding policy statement, what is a good unit, what is even a small a good unit? i believe that this design, and i'm not talking about policy, does not meet the minimum requirements of functioning units from the bedroom discussion in which commissioner miguel take off to the elevator exiting discussion i mentioned on the ada general safety. it just does not work. in the attempt to meet the exposure units, which was an
11:07 pm
awful lot to decide on, the court judge has been made slightly -- the courtyard's have been made slightly larger. in the process of increasing the courtyards, the average unit i see are small. it is 20 square foot there. we are dealing with units that are average too small. when you have the smaller units and bicycle parking right outside your window, if you have them on the grounds, one of the units to see where the bicycle parking are right into the window, you are checking into a suburban motel where you have to keep the windows drawn all the time in order for those people who continue to pick up their bicycles, which you would like to use it for viewing your
11:08 pm
porch, which is impossible. this design is just, together with the technical challenges, is something which we should not approve. partially because the building has presented being redesigned to a larger extent. i am not saying it cannot be done, but it has got to be done differently. i appreciate that the developer said the time to respond to some of the challenges. that is well done. the unit layout, asking me to give approval is not going to fly because the building just does not work. i could go on. there are other code issues. i have not had the opportunity to talk in detail with staff about it.
11:09 pm
i believe the commission should have disclosure. exiting and water heaters, and bicycle parking, where you are not going to have corridors for safety. this might require -- the premises of using a technical demonstration of the building to demonstrate not only does this building not meet building codes standards, but also brings the building to compliance, it would require a total redesign. this commission should be, in principle, are proving a building -- approving a building which is in compliance. that is not here. commissioner sugaya: is your designer here?
11:10 pm
is it the convention of using a circle in a bathroom indicate the clear space necessary? >> not always. commissioner sugaya: so you get a sink in the middle of the circle? >> yes. commissioner sugaya: let's start from scratch here. there have been some conditions that have been described that do not exist. we went to dbi with this building design and went through all of the design is used. prior to putting it together, it was indicated that we met all of the requirements. she has brought up some code issues that indicates to me that she is not familiar with current code. number one camara -- number one, if you look at the aba standards, we need them explicitly. the building has been gone for
11:11 pm
with a fine tooth comb in relation to that. her comment about the elevator is not true. commissioner moore: would do the so kind as to address me as the commissioner? thank you. >> the current code allows for a drop down smoke door into an open area that needs the fire code requirements. that is the case. commissioner miguel's concern about the loss, the fact they are designated as studios in the case that they can put a bet wherever they want. we have got a fixture indicated that could be a drop down bed
11:12 pm
from the wall. it could not. so these concerns about the design, i think, are misplaced. i'm not quite sure why they're being brought up. if someone is opposed to the project, just say you are opposed to the project. instead of bringing up issues that do not exist to convince other people that the project is a bad one because you think it is in your opinion. that is what i think is going on here. you brought up issues that are not true, do not exist. you pull them out of the air. i do not know where you're getting your information. if there are any other questions, i would like to certainly answer them. president olague: i would like
11:13 pm
the zoning administrator to address some of these issues. >> and we did receive the concerns and we did go to the building inspection yesterday to review the plans with them. this was one of the first times that they had seen the plans. no building permit application has yet been submitted. did you do a pre-application meeting with the building department? >> not an official one. i met with the director of the department. we went over the plans personally. >> we went over the matter with their technical services division, on the ground floor of 1660 he mission street. their initial review of the plans were that there were no major code issues. that is where we are. no building application permit has been submitted. we are not aware of any documentation from the department of building inspection that would state that all the building code requirements have been met. that would be required before any permits could be issued for the property.
11:14 pm
commissioner borden: i have a question. if what commissioner moore has said is true, when they file an application and building permit, they would find out that the plan is not workable, then what would happen? with that target a redraw or with as they within dbi? >> any change in the floor plan configuration would be routed back to planning. we would ensure that complies with the commission decision income and if there were any deviations from the approved plan, that would trigger a new review from a rigid new review from the commission. if they are minor tweaks to the floor plan, those do not generally come back to the commission. the thing about the units that may have exposure issues, that would be a concern and may require a new variant if they would increase the number of units.
11:15 pm
commissioner borden: i do not have the technical expertise of ada compliance law or building code to make a determination. i would assume you would build a buildings that will -- you would build a building that would meet those standards. i was here -- i was not here for the first discussion about this project. maybe someone could give me more feedback. i know there has been -- dwelling unit exposure has been the major issue with this project. maybe someone could talk a little bit about the spirit of the last conversation. i would like a little bit more insight about how we got here. it does not sound like the new project meets the goals of what we had set out for. i want to understand that. commissioner moore: i want to summarize briefly. in our last meeting, everybody is excited about this building being taken on by the applicant.
11:16 pm
for adaptive reuse. the concerns start with small units and what we believe, what i believe, is an unlivable unit, particularly in these 325-323 square foot range. you can sit down now. we do not have anymore questions for you. >> you do not have any questions for me? >> not at the moment. there was retail space in the 200 square feet, slightly larger than what a car size is. we made some challenges. the at the core of the commissioners' discussion is, with adaptive reuse, for this kind of building code type, in
11:17 pm
an attempt to identify the city, we do not want to take tenement units. today's redesigned showed smaller units. i am not sure these units need to be starting in the low for hundreds. -- low 400's. that are starting at 3 entered 50 or something like that. this has certain constraints, but for a creative designer, i think you can design a great building without having to come up with what you have here. my pushback on it is, and i repeating myself, was no policy for what is the minimum standard. there is no policy for how we find livability in higher density housing.
11:18 pm
this design does not meet the expectations. i believed that we are setting a precedent that this building has to be designed to a higher standard, particularly when there are deficiencies which, i think, have not been fully guided -- vetted. i am disappointed to hear that the applicant talked with dbi only two of the zoning administrator tell us that he is not had a formal conversation. mr. gardner is experience in buildings. whether or not he is experienced in retro and adaptive reuse, i do not know. i say -- i see a number of inefficiencies. i am not ready to approve this design, because it sets a standard which we are proving for 320 square feet.
11:19 pm
with the admission that the loft cannot even be slashed on. that is a deceitful presentation. i do not believe we can sit here and say that all units, because the ceiling height is not met, how you sleep is an altogether different matter. folded furniture which you put on the wall at night. will you sleep in front of your refrigerator? i'm not sure, but i cannot support that approach to design and i cannot support that approach to livability. i am making a motion that we deny. >> second. commissioner borden: there are a couple of issues here. an issue about unisize, which would determine this apartment does not have a standard on. we approved units as small as
11:20 pm
250 square feet because there were considered affordable by design. i know that a lot of people live in all kinds of all situations where i would not want to, where they cannot sit up out of their beds. but people do live that way. if i understand, this will become a condominium building in, so people will be buying the building. at the price it would be buying for, i do not have the concern about a being a tenement building. we need to trust the dbi. if we do not have a set standard for dwelling unit size, i do not know how we hold this project sponsor liable for a particular size. if there are specific tweaks to design, i think that would make a lot of sense as to how we could advise the project moving sort -- product moving toward. i do recall as approving 200 cities where feed. lots of people have different
11:21 pm
requirements for space and how they use it. some people like really large spaces and some people like small spaces. i think our society is too obsessed with the acquisition of space for rooms that you do not even go into every day. i think it is a very subjective call on that regard. particularly on the standard. i will see how this motion goes. commissioner sugaya: one question, back to the project sponsor. on the 62 presidential list, it says studio and lost at 300 square feet, up one bedroom loft at 545, etc. is that square footage included in the loft space that cannot be used from up above or just the ground floor? or the floor down below? >> the ground floor down below. commissioner sugaya: i think the
11:22 pm
insertion of furniture in your -- in here gives not a false impression, but i am considering buying a foldout bed for a condominium because it will save some space. there are those that have couches in front that folds over on. there are all kinds of innovative ways that are available that people can use to accommodate both sitting down and having a bed. that kind of thing. to me, that can all go where the sofa is shown and the table is shown and that kind of thing. in a way, i cannot see myself sleeping in a four-foot space, but if that is additional room for storage, that would be great. in any case, i do not exactly
11:23 pm
like the life out here, -- i do not exactly like the life out here, but i am not necessarily against the smallness of the units. commissioner antonini: -- commissioner sugaya: more of a concern about unit exposure. it still seems fairly high to me. commissioner antonini: i feel the same way as commissioner sugaya. i think we've gone a long way to satisfy the unit's exposure situation. inflexibility is the key thing here. -- flexibility is the key thing here. i will make an argument that we should not incentivize smaller units, but if we allow people the ability to buy these units if they so choose, we are not forcing anybody into these, as
11:24 pm
long as they are compliant and dbi approves them as being enough space and the layout is enough, and they are fire code complianct, i think is an interesting concept and some think it would be interested in. i think they made great strides in modifying this. i am supportive of it. i do think that the units are small, but it is an elective situation. forcing people -- we are not forcing people in here or taking people who are challenged and putting them into these units. we are allowing them to be built and they can be purchased by people who choose to live in a smaller unit. commissioner moore: i will take another tack at that. i am in support of small units. these units, because of their layouts are designed so that
11:25 pm
small does not work. the devil is in the detail. i take issue with the design and what it does not do more so than the smallness of the units. i believe that the building itself is still, for me, unfortunately, 12 pounds in a 10 pound bag. for example, i want to direct that part of my discussion to mr. gardner. i want to talk about the parking spaces. there is no parking required. in the six parking spaces which are proposed may be designed to serve the tenants, but they also might be designed to serve others because there is no
11:26 pm
access from the garage. you have to go to the street, open the door, etc. if those things would not be there, it might be a financial consideration because you're creating an additional benefit of the project. if the project was well- designed, it would register some of the units and come up with a design which is slightly different. for example, by saying that we want to talk about quality of design year. the thing that the courtyard has gotten larger in order to give more light to the units, the courtyard for the upper units has gotten larger. the courtyard for the lower units, there is an overhang which makes less like in the smaller units on the ground floor. it is like in the motel where the walkway hangs over the
11:27 pm
window. there is a larger courtyard that is not really helpful as a body. the thing with the bicycles -- that the bicycles are in front of a unit, even a small unit, i think takes away from the livability. those are tiny design tweaks. getting back to the six car spaces, there is room in the project to do it a little differently. again, i want to repeat to mr. gardner, i am not opposing the adaptive reuse of your project. i support it strongly. i just think it could be done better. i am looking for a better design, better designed units. commissioner borden: you have
11:28 pm
made some suggestions. on the last project, for example, we moved the bedrooms on the corner. we swapped the bedroom and living room. are the suggestions you could make here? i am trying to figure out -- i do not think the process is working. the only way to make it work better is if you have actual suggestions and made some with a bicycle parking and the car parking, but maybe with the actual unit designed in? i think it would be helpful. commissioner moore: i do not think that is why i am sitting here. i am pointing of possible areas of improvement. i would like for the commission to be aware of the possibilities. there are some very obvious different ways of doing it. i am not here to spell that out. i'm not comfortable with the
11:29 pm
internal position. commissioner antonini: i would like to ask the project sponsor if you would be amenable, there seem to be some concerns here about the design of some of these units. could we, perhaps, not necessarily speaking for commissioner moore, but it would seem like you might have to reduce your unit account to a little bit less or if you keep the same unit account, redesign the units to accommodate the a efficiencies that she is speaking about. >> that you for raising those issues. i think they are worthwhile to think about. i would like to reiterate the bigger picture that we are trying to do is deal with the number one problem of the city, which is the problem of affordable housing. there is very little of it. thon
250 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on