is out of scale with the neighborhood context and disrupts the visual character. number two, the facade is not come patable with the neighborhood context. number three, the addition will impose a serious seismic threat to the downhill neighbor. number four, it will involve an excessive it canback of a tree which is a bird refuge for hawk hill. the roof deck and additional glazing on the side will invade the privacy to the d.r. requester's living spaces. number six, the additional residential capacity will create inconveniences caused by parking shortages, on-street parking shortages. number seven, the noise from construction will be disruptive to the neighbor's health and well being. to date the department has receive nod letters in opposition nor letters of support. the staff recommendation in light of the d.r. requester's concerns is the department has re-reviewed the project with respect to scale and massing of the context and recommended that the height of the upper floor addition be lowered from 12 feet

to 10 feet. and as it was set back by 14 feet and 5 feet respectively from the front and the side, of the neighbor's property that it was on and it was appropriate mass and response. and we also requested the size and proportions of the window to be better windows to be better design to be compatible with the context. geotechnical analysis, number three -- i am addressing each item. the geotechnical analysis imposed loads on engineering to withstand a seismic event are not in the purview of the planning department but with d.b.i. number four, the cutback of a tree was not representative in the plans and is not in the purview of the planning department. number five, the south side windows were reduced and oriented to further reduce privacy impact to the d.r. requester. south side decks on the second floor roof were eliminated. the front and rear deck is set

off 5 feet from the property line to reduce the privacy impacts. number six, future off-street parking demand from a single family home is speculative and not really regulated by the planning code or in a short-term sense of planning issue in this case. and number seven, noise from construction is jointly regulated by the police code with sf-dbi and public works. again, not in the purview of the planning code. hours of construction, again, are regulated by dbi from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. although the preliminary staff recommendation is that this project was generally compliant with both the code and design guidelines a last-minute review suggests that reducing the second floor ceiling height from 12 feet would better address the issue of scale, massing, window proportions and privacy brought forward by the d.r. requester. staff is recommending that u yo take d.r. and maybe look at the height of the second story which was not really the focus of our

review. we were looking at the addition. and this would probably bring the project to an acceptable condition, not exceptional or extraordinary. that is my report. >> all right. thank you. d.r. requester. ms. hepburn. sure. whomever. good evening, commissioners, and so there are two things about this project we really are strongly against as neighbors. number one is the third floor addition with the height and the second one is the west side, the windows they are adding.

if we can switch to the projectorment -- to the projector. the right-hand side, this house t project po pose a 74 -- proposes a 74% vertical addition. right now the project house is this one is already the tallest in the block, but now the current design, they really consider the surroundings. the current house is 9 feet taller than the house downhill. that house is about 15 feet in height. 15 and almost 1.6. that is a beautiful golden ratio. that is why it look boufl. and look at the facade of the new house. they really have the unified architecture features. everything so far, although they are tallest in the neighborhood, but everything looks beautiful and harmonious. now look at the left-hand side. i can only say that the proportion is accurate to

whatever the blueprint. they will be 25 feet smaller than the next house. 25 feet up there. and when we talk about setback, this unit illustration also already taken into account all the setback. 14 on the front. 5 on the side and the back. you cannot see the back of the house. there is actually the back even further than the third floor. you can see this is looming over the neighboring house in a very aggressive and hostile way. so this whole against residential design guidelines and the visual character you can see this is the google on the right-hand side. this is google street map. it is a beautiful home and has been there since 1930s. it is a beautiful neighborhood, but now just look at the left. this tells the story. and the backyard and with the

open space. and we see the activities and with the floor with 74% vertical addition and the third floor we are facing those bird's nests. that just makes this tree totally inhabitable for bird. this is, again, against -- what is it called? planning code priority policies to protect our open space. this is really, this is just the birds will be gone because of this. there is another point -- yeah. the west side. the property design --

and the reason they don't have a window on this side t house downhill, that is the first house built there. and right now these design don't have window and otherwise a beautiful ocean view. the reason they don't is that unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the interior living space. this design is horrible. and also the parking we are talking about. this is a very small parking area. this house is very small lot. only 25 feet in the front. with the double accommodation. as i already explored in the

application. to face a huge inconvenience for this parking problem. and these are the major reasons. >> a thank you. any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? if you are a d.r. requester, your time was then. are you the d.r. requester? >> yes. >> you will have a two-minute rebuttal, but those were your five minutes that she took. >> are you insinuating i'm short? >> no, i just said you can't -- >> no, not now. you took her five minutes. that was the five minutes from the d.r. requester. you will have a two-minute rebuttal after we hear from the project sponsor. >> thank you. >> wait, wait.

we have to hear from the project sponsor first. >> let us hear from the project sponsor first. thank you. unless there is public comment. is there public comment beyond the d.r. requester who wants to speak? okay. sir, project sponsor, you are the project sponsor? sorry. it is a little confusing sometimes, this format. >> good evening, commissioners. tim young, the project sponsor. we have been working on this project for almost three years now. and just to address the the d.r. requesters are making, first of all, the initial image of the rendering wasn't really accurate. i have more accurate rendering of how the massing is compared to the adjacent building.

so if you look at the vertical addition, the massing is much more minimal than how they were showing it. and of course, with all the setbacks, front, side, and rear, it is minimized. and as far as the visual continuity of the neighborhood, she didn't actual show how the buildings across the street look. it is all mixed in terms of style and architectural features. and in terms of the complaint about the side, privacy issues, here we have the current that overlook the house.

and you don't see the building below. and not to the side door and the window that the d.r. requester is scared of having the privacy intruded. out of respect for one window on the rear, we have minimized a property line window over here. and we have done everything that the planning code has requested through this process. >> okay. thank you.

any public comment in support of the project? now you have a two-minute rebuttal. the d.r. requester. and then the project sponsor -- >> let's talk about -- sorry. >> you have a two-minute -- did ms. hepburn want to speak? if you take her two minutes, she is not able to speak. but you are a team. either you or ms. hepburn have two minutes. >> first of all, we talk about the windows. the window they show, that is where the beautiful design is. they did not have a window facing the door and window, but they took the setback on very high and the end of the house. they have made a 5-feet setback and one window facing south and

one window facing north and the window is way down there above the house at the front of the house is totally different and that will be adding that thing. i show you that page and the big cross part. they going to add a window here is totally different story than what they say. the photo they took, i didn't take any photo. that is just a google street view. the scale is right there. this is like they make it look pretty, but the scale will see. 25 above the current house. the current house is 15 feet in height. 25 looming over the whole house from 19 feet all the way up to 33 feet. and the residential airline and even with the setbacks. and this is outrageous.

and we never mention the foundation and the earthquake and mrs. hepburn talked to the previous owner and this house has a serious foundation problem. the previous owner cannot afford to fix it p. they sold in it a very low market price. that issue is not a planning department -- concern right now, but this is the really going to cause disaster to her house if any earthquake, that is going to fall right through her house. >> thank you. >> project sponsor. you have two minutes if you need it. >> to answer the question regarding the window that is setback, on the overhead, it is this window here. because it is setback 5 feet -- there is no view of, again, the

door and the window. to answer the question regarding the seismic issue, because we're having a vertical addition this, whole building will be seismically upgraded, not only the foundation, but sheer walls done in every floor. there will be better after the remodel than it is now. >> all right. thank you. that, unfortunately, i can't. we will close this portion of the hearing. there may be questions. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: mr. winslow, thank you for presenting the project in the way you did and pointing out the elements that are under planning department jurisdiction and the ones we can comment on and clearly delineating those which are concerns, valid concerns, by

the d.r. requester, however completely and totally out of our purview. the building struck me and the drawings are limited depending on what software you use, around the building is what very bulky and very difficult to understand. what you are suggesting that second and closer review that the second floor height would also be reduced and the building would slightly reconfigure it in terms of overall height. that is not extensive, however. it will happen. i am still concerned about the amount and proportionality of windows, and as that project moves forward, perhaps there is additional work the planning department needs to do with the applicant to really tame this building down a little bit. it is somewhat really not at all within the general expressions of the buildings around which, which are slightly tamer.

the many popouts and wrap arounds makes this an extremely busy and bulky looking building. and with the re-examination of that expression, i would also look at window proportions and types of windows. i see windows with mullions and without, and there is something amiss in the business of this project. i am inclined to support it, but i would suggest that we take d.r. and have really the applicant very closely work with staff to address some of the things that you yourself at second reviewpointed out which i support and even go a little bit further. that includes the front expression and the facade expression of the building which i find rather odd at best. it may be due to the way it's rendered, but i think it needs more work. that would be a motion but it

requires additional work and perhaps as a cursory, if you would find a moment to re-represent the project once it is in shape in the manner that the department supports it in in various forms. >> second. >> very good. commissioner? >> i want to clarify a motion to take the suggested changes that mr. winslow said to reduce the height and also to continue to work the project sponsor on the -- >> a window expression, facade expression, and tame the building down a little bit. it is just too busy a building. and it just needs to -- it needs a little help. i think there is enough talent in the department to understand what i am talking about. >> very good, commissioners. on that motion to take d.r. and implement staff's recommended modifications and continue working with staff on improvements to the design, commissioner johnson.

>> aye. >> a commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> a commissioner moore. >> aye. >> a commission president hillis. >> aye. >> a commissioner, item 21 for case 2015-009945drp for 1418 diamond street. the item is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2012.0731.6173 to construct two-store horizontal rear addition on a 25 foot wide by 100 foot deep. the elevator is the allowed in the roof top pertinence which is also part of the proposal is allowed and within the buildable height. within the building it prosides accessibility for a disabled

person and is set back 21 feet from the front of the building to minimize the visibility from the street. an unwarranted dwelling unit was discovered and is to be legalized under subsequent and separate permit. this block face of diamond street consists of a mix of two and three story stucco and wood clad houses and a fairly consistent pattern of mid block open space. the horizontal rear addition is sculpt led so the first and second stories are partially below grade and setback to maintain the scale and privacy with respect to the immediate adjacent neighbors. the project added the roof deck and railing 5 feet from the south property line. the reason for the d.r. are the concerns of the d.r. requester of 718 duncan street, an adjacent rear neighbor to the southwest, that the elevator penthouse constitutes a fourth story addition that is out of scale with the neighborhood context. public comment, to date the department has received no

letters in opposition and no letter of support. however, staff received a phone call yesterday from a resident at 1424 diamond, an immediate adjacent neighbor to the south regarding the roof deck that does not appear in the pre-11 and the primary concern was the privacy impact due to the roof deck. the department re-reviewed the project with respect to scale and massing of the context and recommended eliminating the elevator vestibule at the roof, minimize the roof massing and removing solar vents. i apologize. i was hacopies and i emailed th out. let me try to do while reading on. the changes and based on the residential guidelines, staff finds that the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed as modified to further minimize any privacy concerns and does

not represent any exceptional or extraordinary conditions to justify the further notifications. that is my presentation. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. evening. >> good evening. >> and this review has nothing to do with the two-story rear yard addition or the front facade addition, but basically these folks are going to cover every buildable inch of this little 25-foot wide lot. and that is not why i am here. it's like, okay. you have the right to do that. go ahead and do that. you need to understand this block of diamond, this part of diamond street. almost every -- and i have lived around the corner there for 33 years and before that and i walk my dog a lot and very familiar with the area.

the street on which 1418 diamond street is located, that block, the block before it and the block after it are almost all one and two-story homes. it's very low density. about as low as you can get. there is hardly any three-story houses. this 1418 diamond street is already one of the only three-story houses in the area. and the only -- the elevator vestibule elimination is they are not eliminating a 9 1/2 foot protrusion in the middle of this boxy house and sticking straight up from the roof.

just pull the mic over to you. so we can hear you. so there will be a huge addition where the strings are. you can kind of see them all the way back here. and also in the front. and it's like, fine, they have the right apparently to build there. the problem is this elevator protruding above the roof and 9 1/2 feet, if that's not for a fourth story, i don't know what it would be for. it would go up like this and literally -- >> don't forget the microphone there. >> it would go up approximately like this. literally over the entire bay, over the top of the oakland hills, just looking at it. and it's quite, quite

unattractive. as far as this disability goes, we all had a meeting. the people claim to be disabled. i never saw any proof of that. they also said they were over 70 years old and born in 1951. do the math. they are well under 70 years old. as a matter of fact, i am much older than they are. and i was born in less than 1951. that is how i know their math was off. [please stand by]

. >> it's disrespectful to the neighborhood. it -- and finally, i'll just say that our housing prices that we have, certainly not ameliorated any way. i have the single-family dwelling have a 9.5 foot protrusion on top of an already tallest house on the block. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any public comment in support of the d.r.? welcome -- yeah, now is your time. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is lorraine aitken, and

i live in the little yellow house that you saw in the previous picture to the south at 1424 diamond, directly south of 1418 diamond. i've lived in my home since 1996. i'm here because i was very concerned to find after the period of discretionary review was over, project plans were changed significantly with the addition of a maintenance stack that seems to resemble a roof deck. i don't know the correct term so i'll just continue to refer to it as a roof deck, and further, a cat walk on the south edge of the structure on the roof of the expansion. this was not the project that had been agreed to nor when i waived my right to discretionary review. i do thank the project sponsor for making me aware of these changes on september 19. unfortunately, i was on vacation so i've had a very short time to react to this. it disappoints me that i'm here today. after we have worked together so

diligently on a project that is acceptable and protects privacy of both parties. for example, by the sponsor agreeing to obscure a wall of south facing windows, but now, a new structure was introduced to the plan where anyone can walk -- on the roof can walk down to the expansion rooftop see over into my yard, my patio space, kitchen, living and bedroom. i had a productive conversation with the project sponsor yesterday, and i thought we had come to agreement that the cat balk a balk -- walk and ladder would be moved to the north edge of the property, but they are still on the south side of the structure, although not on the entire south edge of the structure. i appreciate the effort and willingness of the project sponsor to make changes, but the impact of more structure on the roof and people on the south edge of the structure is still problematic. while i do not support the roof decks for reasons of being out

of character for our block of 1400 diamond, precedent setting for the future and noise impact of people on a rooftop deck, i strongly oppose the cat walk and ladder providing access to the back garden on the south edge of the structure. i'm aware of very little purpose for such a structure, and i'm asking that this be removed from the plans. access to the garden must have been part of the original plan without needing access to the roof, and i'd like that plan to be honored. in summary, i'd like to ask the commission to consider that this cat walk, if not the whole roof deck, be removed from the plan. there's access to the garden from other parts of the house. i'm able to provide access to my garden through the house as is every other home in the block without a side yard. i would also like to suggest that additional time is granted that relevant neighbors are officially made aware of the changes to the plans and be given adequate time to review before moving forward. it is not right that such changes were made after the time

expired -- d.r. expired. i thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? [inaudible] >> president hillis: okay. thank you. any additional public comment? >> i've sat here for multiple hours, and i've consistently heard people, every day citizens coming up here, saying they haven't been given notice, and that that's what this lady has said right now, she wasn't given notice. i would ask the commission continue this case so the adequate people can get

appropriate notice. he had secondly, i'd like to see this rooftop structure being removed because these people can look directly no our house. we have no privacy if it goes up, and it's an invasion of our home as homeowners. we've lived there since 1996, and we have absolutely no privacy if this goes in. out of fairness, i would ask you to continue this so that other members of our community can weigh in on this because once this goes up, the whole neighborhood's going to change, and we're going to all look like sky scrapers in the sky. we're just a little -- two little people living here, and all we want is to have peace and quiet in our neighborhood, and we can't have it if this structure goes up. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. all right. project sponsor. >> good evening. jason caldes, architect for the owners of 1418 diamond street. thank you for the late hour and

your service. i should begin by saying that the owners' parents built the house in 1950 on this -- on an empty steeply up sloping lot. dennis and his siblings grew up there. the proposed design stems from the housing lacking a few things that dennis and his wife need to retire here, principlely, an elevator serving the garage, first, second and third floor levels, and a breakfast area with detective open space connection to the rear. a master bedroom with a small master bathroom. a laundry room, street level entry internally connected to the garage with a stair that serves each level, upgrades to the seismic safety and energy efficiency in the process, and finally, creating a solution that does not require a four story building on a steep, uphill sloping lot. to do all of that, the project requires excavation, a significant amount at the

existing rear yard and under the house. to make this result possible and pleasing, the application proposes a significant amount of sky lights for daylighting, a large group of south facing windows, broad doors to the patios to the north and west, and the use of large doors at the breakfast nook to the space that is developed underneath the breakfast room. since there is no path -- since there is no opportunity for a trades man's alley on a 27.5% up slope through the house, the use of a bypass of a garage elevator, roof deck, and ladder to the rear yard creates an effective way to access the roof and rear yard as compared to the existing condition, and as compared to any design that does not include such a feature. the elevator shaft has been minimized in footprint and in height to exactly what elevator manufacturers of winding drum

equipment require, and that form can hardly be seen from the public way, set back 21 feet as mr. winslow acknowledged. the roof deck, it is a late addition to the design because it addresses the need and desire to provide the being saysory dwelling unit. this deck itself is set back 5 feet or more from the side property lines and a little more than 16 feet from the front property line as allowed by city ordinance. the proposed slender metal guardrail post with cable railing have no impact when viewed from uphill properties. the current proposed improvements do not enclosed any -- consist of any enclosed usable roof area and consist

solely of a 27 foot elevator shaft that rises 9 feet above the existing roof parapet. while planning staff and code do not consider preparations, views across the homes are preserved by this design. we've prepared a number of 3d images. we super imposed the image of our three dimensional model p precisely to fit that photograph, and then, when we realized that photograph was taken from the ground level, standing at the corner of the appellant's lot and the camera over the fence pointing towards our property with an intervening property that lorraine aitken lives at, at 1424, we made another image that is more properly an image taken from -- as if from the outdoor balance

coney on the back of the appellant's house. to summarize, the elevator to the roof provides reasonable accommodation for the owners, the elevator provides universal accessibility to the 367 square foot roof deck from each level of the house, provides access to the a.d.u. the elevator to the roof provides access for maintenance of the photo voltaic, and solar panels being installed. roof and narrow cat walk provide access for a gardener to maintain a rear garden and also provide required means of egress from an occupied roof. the elevator to the roof provides access to usable open space to the a.d.u. because the owners would like to maintain separate control of their rear

yard. and we presented two designs to the planning staff, and planning staff has recommended approval each time, and we ask that you uphold those. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> okay. >> president hillis: public comment in support of the project? you're the property owner? >> property owner. >> president hillis: all right. you can't speak now. >> i can't? >> president hillis: so -- but you can speak during rebuttal, so each side will have a two-minute rebuttal. first the d.r. requester, and then, sir, you can speak. >> thank you. that's fine they're putting in sky lights and a laundry room and that stuff. i'm sure as clever an architect, he can maybe expand that, maybe it a little more roomy. but -- and his diagrams, we don't say they're wrong.

those images do not lie. they show a huge, three-story boxy house with a 9.5 foot obstruction up on top of the roof of it. and that -- that obstruction from the back, from where my house and everybody uphill, because diamond, it's very, very steep in the back of their house, you know, obstructs all the way across the berkeley hills, the whole city, everything. and those images don't lie. sometimes people lie. they claim they need reasonable accommodations, you know, faking language or some federal disability laws, but you know, the fact is, i do not oppose these folks putting a three-story elevator in their house. if they're disabled, put in the elevator. you know, go up and down to all the floors you want.

what -- what is being objected to is the fourth story elevator on a three-story house, and that fourth story elevator is obnoxious, it's not attractive at all, it doesn't conform to anything in the neighborhood, and it detracts from the character of my neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor. you just have two minutes. >> thank you. it's been a long day. i was born and raised in frisk. actually, i worked at cal foods and as a bagger at del market, born and raised in that house, grew up in that house. i'm not going to flip the house, i'm just trying to use the home for my wife and myself. we want to have access to all parts of the house, including the roof. and the reason for that is that we're tunnelling down into the hill, and we've got 19 sky

lights to bring light down, glass floor on the third floor to bring light todown stairs. there's going to be an issue cleaning of the sky lights, want to have solar panels. and we want to be able to have access to those areas with the elevator, so it's a handicap issue. i'm going to present to you, and you've got my packet on this overhead, my wife's, reeta -- we've been married 36 years, and that is her placard. she's got bad knees, she can't walk up stairs. we can't use the house. the grand kids love to come and spend time with us, and my kids love to spend time with us. we love noe valley, we take our kids down to the library, our grand kids, but we need to be able to use all areas of the house, and that means even at

the top, even if it means putting planters around it and making it look nice, so i request you approve our permit. i've been working on this six years to get it to go. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. all right. so that closes this portion of the hearing. we'll open it up to commissioners. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i guess one word before i listen to commissioner moore's wise advice. we had 2271 lion street, and we had a lot of opposition. we had the city attorney weigh in with us. it's not a public accommodation that's in an individual's home. this does seem kind of extraordinary that, you know, you have to go up the elevator to go across the roof to go up the ladder to go into the back yard to where you actually have steps. i just want to make sure we're aware of the prior situation where we had this very issue come up, and having an elevator,

it doesn't have to go to the roof, so i'm -- i'm actually not in support of the project as it is. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: let me comment on. the fact that the building will have an elevator inside the house to go from the garage to the third floor is one issue. the fact that in an area where there are no roof decks, we're ending up with this extra contraptions, etc., for the gardener. it's getting cluttered because it starts to be a cat walk to the entire roof surface, it starts to be cluttering for the entire neighborhood. i think it's good to add an a.d.u. but not at the expense of the rest of the house, who want to have access to the open space or have their garden ergo down there. i believe there's too much

access on the elevator and roof deck which creates an imposition on the neighborhood because there aren't any. so i kind of tend to raise questions and -- and perhaps mr. winslow could shed a little bit more light on this. there's too much going on for what's trying to be achieved here. >> i would defer to the project sponsor to explain that story a little bit clearer if that was the question. >> president hillis: what story? >> the -- the story of -- there's an elevator. the elevator's there to provide access to a disabled person within the house. why, then, does the elevator need to go to the roof? why couldn't the stairs go to the roof? i could try and tell that story, but the project architect is in a far better position to explain that. >> president hillis: we heard that story. i think the project is generally well designed and it works. i just think having that nine -- you've got to build the enclosure for it, and you've got to go up for equipment. i agree, it's just too much on

the roof. so i mean i'd support taking d.r. and finding a different means to get up on the roof and lopping off the elevator access. but i can't make a motion. commission commissioner koppel? >> commissioner moore: i'd just summaries and make a motion out of it. based on the roof deck and the elevator, cat walks and ladders is somewhat out of keeping with the neighborhood. >>clerk: sir. >> commissioner moore: i make a motion that we do take d.r., eliminate the elevator going to the roof, but supporting the other intent of the project with adding an a.d.u. or legalizing a formal mother-in-law unit but not using the roof in the form that it requires an elevator and a cat walk and a ladder. if there would be a small roof deck which would be accessed by

a hatch as we do in other places, i would support that, but it will not be a full penthouse on top of this building. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just one question for mr. winslow, there's not requirement there be open space? >> there is a requirement, however, i have a back up here. >> good evening, commissioners. usable open space can be waived for the addition of an a.d.u. by the zoning administrator. additionally, the sponsor's able to the legalization program in which case usable open space is just flat out waived. >> commissioner richards: okay. so we're covered there. okay. so i support the motion. >>clerk: very good, then, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to eliminate the

elevator, cat walk and ladder however noting that a reduced deck with a roof hatch would be acceptable. on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> president hillis: all right. the meeting's adjourned.

>> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban

environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or

your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans

and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking a watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming

that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones

creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from

local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text

told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us >> a way of life in san francisco. when the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. tell me a little about the soft story program. what is it? >> it's a program the mayor signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help

homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not collapse. >> did you the soft story program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame? >> it only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. it's aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or more stories and five or more units. but the openings at the garage level and the street level aren't supported in many buildings. and without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so it's to everybody's advantage to do the work and make sure they protect their investment and their tenant. >> notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of

potentially at-risk properties but fewer than one-third have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. let's talk worst case scenario. what happens in a collapse? >> buildings have the tendency of rolling over. the first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. in an earthquake the building is a total loss. >> can you describe what kind of strengthening is involved in the retrofit? >> one of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. in an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. you have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors. where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. >> so, here we are actually

inside of a soft story building. can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs property owners might expect? >> it's a very simple process. we deliberately tried to keep it that way. so, what's involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. this adds some flexibility so that during the earthquake you'll get movement but not collapse. and that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. >> so, potentially the wood and the steel -- it sounds like a fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse from one in 4 to one in 30? >> that's exactly right. that's why we're hoping that

people will move quickly and make this happen. >> great. let's take a look. so, let's talk steel frames. tell me what we have going on here. >> well, we have a steel frame here. there are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story. it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake ready,

>> san francisco fleet week, starting in 2010, began on a mission of taking advantage of the assets that come up during fleet week for the celebrations to partner up with city of san francisco and practice emergency response preparation programs, and it's a very sophisticated program. it's been going on since 2010 with some great results. san francisco, during the time that i've been working on fleet week in 2010 has been very lucky to have mayors that are really tuned into the needs of the community and the needs of the first responders professionals. and mayor lee was especially good with that, and we're not missing a beat with mayor london breed, and i