tv Planning Commission 42816 SFGTV May 1, 2016 7:00am-8:01am PDT
7:00 am
activations on the ground floor for some levels of retail three hundred square feet there is a lot of residents no where for them to go we made changes in zones to make buildings work and for some reason we could not get something here that make sense but three or four height zones and maybe shift them for a better urban design across the street for that one not the project - >> yeah. the freeway project we actually changed the zone to make the zoning work rather than vice versa we want to commend move to continue it and really get in right and open to pretty much anything to get it right. >> agreed. >> commissioner moore. >> i was just considering
7:01 am
making a motion but in support of that i think there is evidence that we have worked this out in a manner that creates quick solutions and we're basically questioning and that's the charge by which this project is continued. >> commissioner antonini. >> but i think we need more direction for the project sponsor just to continue it is not enough first of all, we're in agreement we'll probably need for detail space and, in fact, the garage were moved to harrison perhaps the space where the garage is now located on first street to give us supplemental rob on the slope of the hill that may not be the easiest place there's a restaurants further on first on a sloping area so 3 might be
7:02 am
usable that could be worked by the architect then you know if, in fact, we - the commission feels i don't see the garage has to think on harrison other commissioner say if the commission wants to do that there's not a problem with people but that is something to consider the other things i've heard i'm not sure what commissioner moore as saying our looking for more separation on jasper. >> i was not saying anything in particular but brought into the broader context of the evolving of the rincon hill building that includes lansing and everything around that that goes across the intersection. >> i tend tony heard about a separation i'm not sure i'm not
7:03 am
clear what that is bus or but were some neighbors on the jasper looking for more of a separation that might be part of that in my opinion i want to see a uniformity of the mason tree on the entire building i think that is a lot more respectful for siemens across the street although that's not a masony - my wife asked about glass towers it gives me this more historic context and that might answer some of the concerns of two different things going on those are in some of my main things i would like to see and i don't know what kind of period for continuance can you do this in a month you on or three weeks
7:04 am
something like that. >> commissioners, if i could jump in i think that first of all, your calendars are full until august i think this project we need to do work on this i'll say that work should have been done sooner i'm not pointing fingers but a miscommunication on this issue we have work to do i'm sorry to bring that up i hadn't looked this project but we need more work i think i'm concerned about the assess issues and some of the design issues so i'll- i realize this is been around a long time i appreciate the patience but the way your calendars looks at it is august would be the fourth. >> that's fine i make a
7:05 am
motion. >> i made the motion. >> okay you did august 4th i accept that. >> and if i might i'm sorry, i want to make sure we're capturing the issues the sees issues i totally recognize the harrison problem where the slope so and commissioner president fong i'm not sure to get a double truckload height that's on unusual thing with that said, i want to explore assess issues we might talk with municipal transportation agency on a cut in first street because of the widening sidewalks we want to have a conversation so the access issues is number one and at amount of retail try to increase the the overall distinction between the upper and lower floors needs to be worked out and the relationship to the jasper building some
quote
7:06 am
relieve given there and what. >> the materials. >> the materials the jasper the 45 lansing entry looking at the possibility of the entry on harrison. >> thank you very much for taking that on commissioner moore. >> director rahaim when we took on the reconsideration on harrison and the gentleman was involved and you it is really a powerful discussion anchoring reconsidering the building with the rincon hill plan we shouldn't not omit doing in for openers not take into account this building as a individual solution but a large requirement i have basically all buildings have responded to now this comes as the last seed we are occupying this assembly with a
7:07 am
relatively ambiguous history we have to be extra careful we're book ending the san francisco moving on the friday i think that requires a lot of sensitivity and as i say we will be remiss in not pirating u putting that into the discussion. >> just to be clear including the project sponsor none questions the size or bulk or scale it is the design considerations we the access issues. >> except i think that the gentleman said or commissioner vice president richards brought it up for the harrison building we reconsidered the height lines to get the project i'm not sure saying - i hope there will be commissioners participating in the broader workshop working
7:08 am
group i think we're dedicated to make f this happy i leave it up to you and that's the working days. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'd like to at that particular time in a working group i've been introduce the rincon hill process i kind of like to make sure that does meet all the expectations so i can be of service. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> if - do you need another person i'll be glad to be the thirds man out. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter until august 4th about decision it from the commission. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 78 to
7:09 am
7:10 am
review for a permit proposing to construction a one story evacuation the basement level to include a new basement in the rear of horizontal see edition with a encroachment and interior and exterior alteration with the garage not change from this the subject site in the inner sunset and a single-family homes two stories in design constructed in 1940 initially in 2014 a variance was filed for this property in order that the that portion of an additional impostures to the side yard with the northern property line the dr was filed during that time and multiple letters of opposition too this variance is zoning administrator took the variance in advisement when the decision was made the
7:11 am
project sponsor substantially withdraw and redesigning it to a code compliant project, however, the dr have remind the dr has remained 15 avenue faces the structure present a first story but counsel sloping that accommodates 2 story building at the restore evaluation with a shared and assess is residential design guidelines reviewed that following the supplemental and determined the project didn't meet the residential design guidelines they were not in support of horizontal addition for the side yard the support is not more the variance the project sponsor advised the project not embolism to require the side generated beyond the review and
7:12 am
residential design guidelines look at the and determined the project is in the exceptional or extraordinary in the matters raised in the considering file and found the height and depth of the rear addition keeps with the adequate light and air and the alterations of the residents didn't qualify as a obligation the exterior walls to be removed on factor to at a most thirty foot percent allows the changes in excess of 50 percent of the exterior walls the planning commission is recommending to not take discretionary review and approve the project based on what was presented in the plans that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> from the commission thank you. >> thank you dr requester please. >> good evening commissioner
7:13 am
president fong and members of the commission steve williams on behalf of the alice that lives on 15 after the building directly north of the subject property and obviously because she's directly north she and her family will suffering the impact that is a very large radical alteration taking a building from 15 hundred to more than 4 thousand square feet and the project just changed 10 days ago the evaporates was withdrawn the variance hearing was last june obviously a lot of people opted opposed the project sponsor continued to say they'll not consider withdrawing the variance up to 10 days ago we have a tenfold increase and built to the lot lion it was
7:14 am
withdrawn after rdt said you can't have that that's on page 3 they finally withdraw it and may i any conversations with mary couldn't withdraw the variance couldn't build it without a variance and she's rights right this is a demolition a demolition a remodel roving nearly eve recognizable element of the building let's talk about that a little bit later and first talk about something that is staff missed completely in the project what is demolished this building is a naturally affordable 2 unit rent-controlled units building no mention in our analysis let me hand you the real estate from
7:15 am
the printout which shows that was purchased three years ago as a 2 unit building still has two units in that the handout shows the kitchens and states the units on the lower level has a separate assess so that this sold a two unit rendering building for 200 thousand they planned to remove the units and turn it into a three or four million dollars single-family the tenant opted out this and there is no mention no analysis no mention of the general plan about in no mention of the priority qualities and how their violated are we supposed to be retaining all the unit we have in the city
7:16 am
especially the rent-controlled units from a building from 1920 that is a building built in 1920 that's the first points the second point this is truly a demolition that is one 25 crown terrace all over again, you know i sat up here and pleaded with the commission not to pass that so-called remodel and in this one not only a demolition but they're counting what building exist can i have the overhead please so included in the packet is this supposed outside foundational element that is being retained and culture towards side calculations that didn't exist that is a low level
7:17 am
garden entrance wall that you can see any picture shows it, it is the low level wall they're calling the exterior the building the actual interior is over here that is confirmed from the sanborn maps this is the sanborn map from 1998 that is not at exterior foundation a wall they're counting all of this and they're saying this is where we started and so not only have they not told you the this users fraudulent calculations and this is crystal clear i've looked at the other shadowing we did our on calculations an architect i didn't have copies but will
7:18 am
submit those as well so we urge you to have the whole project reexamined. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you, mr. williams project sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> i'm sorry speakers if in support of dr requester anyone support of dr requesterf in support of dr requester anyone support of dr request in support of dr requester anyone support of dr requestin support of dr requester anyone support of dr requester please. >> i'm not sure i can talk i don't live at any sister's house. >> can i talk. >> yes. >> as a person living in the neighborhood i support the dr requester they are more than 20 neighbors
7:19 am
who opposes the 2079 avenue project they have authorization letters to the zoning administrator because of the huge expansion and also will be the first building in the neighborhood with four flowers of occupancy we have we live in a quiet single-family residential neighborhood not want our lives to be disrupted short term or long terms we want the owners to follow the city rex o rules and regulations and residential design guidelines and stick to the plan and keep it a single-family units
7:20 am
single-family residences with one- >> anyone else speaking in favor the dr requester. >> project sponsor five minutes. >> commissioners for the record mary gallagher i'm speaking for the homeowners for others so this is the house right here i'll show you the lower one on a 3 thousand unemploy square feet lot the only one story home in the neighborhood they're looking for a larger home to accommodate they're larger family they changed direction and found a house an oddball the smallest houses on the block to enlarge
7:21 am
it the dr requester is here and here primary issue has been the changes all the time the second story windows that look at the first story thousand house it dates from a 1920 henry was in high school i worked in the 30s and 40s those are the houses that he built so when we did he took the lots the interior lots and divided them with 31 needed of width and 45 i 25 to 26 wide buildings leaving open four or five foot side yartsdz on the south side so one side - >> so what you have on this block are buildings that have south side windows and some building have north side but
7:22 am
fewer look at the side yard up and down the block the same thing the buildings on the south block the view and light to the buildings on the north the same situation this is overlay that shows the building in our passage we're turning a first story into a second story to make consistent with the goal and adding one room into the site that is fence level and the second story blocks the dr filers windows the shadow impact study show us it is blocked in the winter and mr. washington mentioned our original plan to build up from the north line where it is exciting and then take remove
7:23 am
some existing construction on the setsdz to make that consistent with the pattern on the block that is required a variance this is a side by bodies of the lot the pattern is only one side our our original planner was michael smith in 2014 he recommended in support of variance which why we went forward with the variance jeff horn took over about a year ago and at that point the dr was filed last summer and took it to the rdt the rdt recommend against from the zoning administrator actually recommended a modified variance so we have 3 opinions we took 9 possess conservative and we removed the top floor the proerj
7:24 am
please 3 feet less the need of a variance we were left with the existing and proposed building on the block faces this is your exhibit e so what we're have is that the side yards from the 31 feet blocks us we've pulled back 3 feet the dr requester that is 7 feet one inch separation it will be her windows and our wall that is the largest separation on the entire block in terms of the height it is not the tall itself building on this block it is 0 probably in the low, low probably half some of these buildings have false front like one that is here so some have flat roofs
7:25 am
beginning to end this one here and taller our building in summary a small project a first story into second story like all houses and walls similar to the adjacent and rear addition is built is shorter than other annexations and more space on her 31 foot lot. >> anyone in support of the sponsor. >> good evening my name is and i less i live on 17 after a couple of blocks from the project i have seen a lot of vacant projects in the neighborhood but this is not the worst of them
7:26 am
leo and they want to make their home second story like everybody else not taller than ever house on the block the plans shows this and the commissioners approved this project this has held thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. clark. >> i'm disappointed this is not the way to run a city this kind of in response, the packet perfection handed about all the work this project has been through it xoornt what that says we know the dr is a joke this process is fundamentally broken we added years and years to
7:27 am
everything someone is adding a three bedroom or two they should be able to pass through permitting based on the rules that by the planning department and the law we just sat through you guys talking aboutes terrific how buildings talk to one another people talk to one allocate buildings don't the community made of the people that move here it is not fair to have people saying this is a single-family home community we want to keep is that way you know there is inclusionary this is keeping people out is this shouldn't be rh1 but taller many more units the and then e reason it didn't because of the
7:28 am
poor laws in place in person is following those laws as best they can and i'm really disappointed you guys waste of time this is i really think we can do this better if we are more efficient you, you guys spent more time learning about projects ahead of them i'm sorry but i think we all waste of time in this room with questions asked about projects that could have been known ahead of time i'm sorry. i'm a little off topic but time for this to get a lot more efficient thank you. >> good evening ladies and gentlemen, and my name is don, i live in
7:29 am
the 17 avenue and just a couple of blocks from the project site from the leo and renees how they have work hard to make that project work they have put up story posts and shadow studies with the neighborhood association and hired survey for the neighbors requests and changed the project survey times several times have similarly to the building
7:30 am
which is why the planning department recommended approve i think that is a good project go and ask you to approve it today thank you very much. >> and also the house i live is second story and my neighbor is three story house and attached house so i lived there over 35 years and from my windows i look i live with this they own their lands i own my land i looked at the oceans they look at the ocean but they can look at any house i i cannot see i just had in my opinion leo and
7:31 am
renees house the lowest house in the block with first story most of houses is second story but if their house is adapted a vacant place the neighbor always had a better view look at her site now the new owner didn't matter he - i think they had a right to the neighbors before they have the same second story house like the neighbor before. >> that's what i my point of view. >> thank you very much union thank you any other speakers in support of project sponsor. >> mr. johnsms. johnson.
7:32 am
7:33 am
be you know included in the new foundations which i am working everyday trying to get the city department involved to receiving that we started 7 o'clock in the morning that is late i have to pack a lunch to get down there so you know i'm trying to get the first procedures you know right on those buildings projects and also with the context and also i have already turned in literature of what i want to do on things and with the task force and the environments
7:34 am
whoever wants to - >> to prepare for any kind of gardens you know might have to do that but i'm because - task force and police department has a lot of work to do i have health problems and these priorities do not need mlb me messed up in the organizations so we can you know do - >> as responsible and not precede in other different kind of ways - >> which will help the delivery in our housing
7:35 am
to proceed in making the context and housing. >> >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> >> any other speakers in support of project sponsor. >> seeing none, mr. wilz on above the dr requester you are 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards and steve williams again yeah, he said it is a one 25 crown terrace situation and have this infancy of those one hundred-year-old stucco walls with a new floor on top of i assume they'll undertaken them and put the top on their removing eir wall and how they retain the ceilings and floors
7:36 am
once you removal the walls the impacts this is not about views it is not views windows in their kitchen and windows in they're eating area and here are the windows the view out of them is directly to the building next door a magnitude view this is wolfed about light always has been so in particular there's been no sort setbacks or design considerations given all the light that is blocked if this building is built as proposed no setback on upper floor they call a second story but it is 4 stories because the steep hill we spent a lot of time fighting time areas that is - we never got to talk about the design
7:37 am
considerations how about a setback at the rear so these windows that are also located at the rear the neighboring building might get for directly sunlight or lightwell will someone explain what y we are a 3 foot setback with walls if you look at the plans undescribed walls they keep pushing out to the property line i mean never understood why those - >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> mr. williams thank you, mr. williams. >> ms. gallagher you have 2 minutes to rebut. >> so 5 hours we get an e-mail from steve williams with an n s
7:38 am
r for one units and now wants to retain two units even for steve he's a newland world record i think really we want to commend mention the theme of steve's letter it is 11 pages it talks about how the plans are inaccurate, misrepresentational gamesmanship and misleading and consistent misrepresentation, smoke screen like the tax dodge incorrect and deceptive i worked for him for 10 years and reviewed the promotions as a planner john would never do anything inaccurate or misrepresentation all i found
7:39 am
that inflame try we maybe are a dottingism steve said we changed the plans many times we've changed there them 6 times to comply with the dr requester wants i don't know what else to do we've been waiting for this hearing for 9 months those are not developers small small property owners i hope you vote for them tonight and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> john is here as well. >> before i i call on the commissioner i have a question for mr. we've got a long ways to go actually for you about the plan i apologize we've heard about the walls on the does the separation on the existing structure for the proposed structure does anything change. >> yeah. so sieving is showing the plan on in the existing side
7:40 am
yard there is existing non-complying structure that gets to stay we're adding a second level and moving that 3 feet away from the property line that is the cement wall. >> no, this is just another smoke screen there is a small wall leading occupy the property in the front we'll take that down steve is misrepresented we counted that is as a demolition we counted the right walls we're not - we haven't done anything you know to that space we're not building a space actually, the best way to say that. >> okay. thank you a question for mr. women's
7:41 am
before i call an commissioner antonini. >> can you - mr. williams what exactly are you looking for. >> well, i think that first of all, the two units should be looked at this was something we didn't writ up in the brief this is something the department if look at by existing policy to say rent-controlled unit that's two of them on the west side you know and you know, i get 5 minutes before i'm personally attacked but all we've looked for consideration for those windows and the people that live next door and have for 20 years all the talk this is their home they've never lived there they own a house elsewhere and the plans speaks for itself i mean it show that this is corner i'm talking about is shown of the existing foundation i looked at
7:42 am
the i see an open entry and an door they should it as the foundation of the building in the demo calculations so - i don't know what to say i get attacks but no explanation being why this is not true what i'm seeing no foundation yet their plans show the existing foundation. >> okay. >> anything else. >> that's it. >> two questions for staff the demo population and foundation walls versus the interior wall mr. horn said whatever wall they're in the threshold. >> that's correct the constructions to confirm. >> one other question i see the picture in the real estate listing of a kitchen net there
7:43 am
7:44 am
>> i see there's a clear connection between the downstairs area and the main floor, which even under abeler's legislation that did two comments to make it a separate unit that you can't remove if you want to do need to see you but one of the requirements just have a side entrance and the camino connection between the main units and their separate unit. there is in the kitchen you could anyway, there is a clear connection the connection is honestly been there probably for as long as the house was
7:45 am
that. you can also see this wall in question and you should question of all is in place. i don't really see any basis also i went out to the back of beautiful sunny day, and the project sponsor wants to go out about 4 feet to the rear which will line it up with the rear wall of the dr requester. which doesn't really make any difference because the dr requester still has this beautiful view to the south and to the south-to the western somewhat to the south also. which we will no longer have as looking over one-story building one story above grade building which is just bringing it into conformity with everything else on the block. then, the
7:46 am
addition on the bottom the hill slopes very sweetly down toward the use event and there's a garage that comes off the easement. it difficult. they're making a additional down to that bottom level which would be two levels below where the first level is now and it barely goes out into the yard, small distance but give them a little more square footage brings her house closer to the garage. so, it makes a lot of sense because it's hardly a livable building right now for a family to china reminds me of the place i lived in when i was in dental school that they only went to dental service because this kind of bizarro place that a little downstairs area of family would not want but for dental students would be happy to have it because at a garage. we could use as a lap. anyway, it doesn't make any sense and i don't see any reason why the dr doesn't have any facts. there's a setback on the upper floor that's being added to my 7 foot
7:47 am
to 1 inch, which is more than anybody else has between their second floors above grade on the whole street. so, the impact on the dr requester is negligible and as far as any light and air it only affects the view in one particular direction which last time i checked is protected so i'm going to move to not take dr and approve the project >> move and second. >> mr. moore >> i would agree with commissioner antonini assessment. i don't see this as extraordinary. i believe that the project applicant has made a good hesitation with a minimal impact of the project. you are waivers in the boundaries did of course we have to look at. i found the responses to all the side yard, etc. consideration be very
7:48 am
sensitively resolve. they bought, the size of the project and i think it's solidly done it very well presented right mr. galan sure and like to make one comment, and that is, i personally do not appreciate animosity between applicant project representative to be played out in mail i received. it actually does not help the description i find it actually unbecoming to be caught in between. i also would like to say the comparison which i personally spend a lot of time is actually grasping for the stars and inappropriate analogue for what is happening here. i think it distorts the credibility of the dr requester to even use that as an example. >> thank you. commissioners if
7:49 am
there's nothing further there's a motion that's been seconded to not take dr approval >>[roll call vote] >> so moved the motion passes unanimously-zero. commissioners, that pets quizzes on general public, and for which i don't speak regards. any general public, and? ward the meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel]
8:00 am
84 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on