of everyone being concerned for their quality of life. the opportunities they might have for their families, both now and in the future, and you hear us going back and forth because we hear and recognize the complexity that this is your life, and this is a complex situation. i think, you know, the news or the information that this was originally actually two units, and at some point it became a single-family home, and that this might go back to two units, it is appealing, and at the same time, i also recognize that, you know, this is -- there is already a significant square footage within the house, and i think it is workable, and that is -- i am just saying that to say that this is a really difficult deliberation for us, and that's why you can see as going back and forth.

i think, ultimately, i do really like the idea of this house going back to two units, wanting to make sure that it actually is rented out and used as two units , but if a fellow commissioner wants to weigh in, i will pass the microphone. >> you can see we are a couple commissioners short tonight, and we are not going to be able to literally come to a decision with four votes. i would feel better if the d.r. applicants had a little more information regarding the sun study and had more time to review it, but also, i see the need for the expansion, but also see the possibilities for the excavation and staying within the envelope. i will make a motion to continue this. i will continue it for a month. >> i think a month is adequate.

>> to the project sponsor and the... >> just to be clear, we are asking them to share the information about the sun study, also explore other alternatives about relocating the expansion through excavation as opposed to adding on that extra story on top, correct? >> correct. mr. lamb, you have been in front of this commission enough to know where we are going here. i think, you know, folks feel like, you know, it is an excessive, you know, having that fifth floor -- >> it is a basement, sorry, i am a little confused. where does one excavate further? are you asking to go -- we are already down a grade level on

the basement and first floor for the unit, so i am a little confused on how we should excavate further. >> i think that what -- i will not speak for commissioner moore , because she is the expert on the design, what i can see is you have a lot of square footage already, but if your goal is to get two units, and, you know, social space and bedroom space, that there is room within the envelope that is already there, and then there is a crawlspace, you know, -- >> there is no crawlspace. there won't be any crawlspace. actually, maybe now that i'm thinking out loud, we had talked about also adding nad you as an option -- also adding an a.d.u. as an option. we think it would be possible. again, the goal is not to get the largest house possible, but they would like to get their three bedrooms on one level.

it is really critical. they have almost a two and a 4 -year-old, and you can understand that the current house configuration doesn't allow that. >> so just to be clear, we need to have two units, and if this is a request about an a.d.u., that would be a third unit. that just needs to be very clear >> go ahead, commissioner. >> you're suggesting that within the existing propose square footage, the existing massing, that they add an a.d.u.? >> i was not saying that. >> he said that. >> i was quickly thinking about that to understand that. i was thinking about the geometry and the need -- really it is a strong need for them to have three bedrooms on one level , and so, you know, maybe we can look -- >> take some of the social space and make it an a.d.u. >> or taking are taking in the lower guest bedroom and sweet

and making it into an a.d.u., that would really be -- allow them some flexibility, too. >> commissioner richards did you want to? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> i wouldn't mind exploring that. as i said earlier, the fact that we are doing a remodel rather than having a clear definition of a demolition, a demolition would require a new building to operate as a smaller building with 25% rear backyard. we are excluding a building already too large on its lot, so i would become trouble exploring building it out with a caveat that with in that square footage , we are providing an a.d.u., and that would allow you to resize the slightly oversized living spaces and put it into the use of an a.d.u.

i would like to see that. >> i'm a little confused. you already are proposing two units. so you are proposing a third? >> this is a little complicated, but there is currently -- it is undefined. all the planning information -- >> just to be clear, you are proposing a unit that is 1200 square feet in addition to the 3,000 square-foot unit. >> we would remove the thousand square feet for the other larger units, and we would remove square footage from that to make an a.d.u. >> you have a 3,000 -- smaller then a 3,000 square-foot unit to create. >> let's say a 2400 square square-foot three-bedroom, and -- >> but, you are proposing, i think there's confusion here about the concerns. i think the commission has different concerns. >> we are not on the same page here. >> i mean, what you are proposing would be do an a.d.u. to justify the existing mass and size of the building.

>> the proposed mass and size of the building. >> i had concerns about the proposed mass, so i'm not sure the a.d.u. is being answered here, frankly. >> i took -- i think there is a difference of, you know, where the commission is right now, and it might be helpful to have the two additional commissioners. i would support a continuance, you know, my concern was about the mass and the impact on the next-door property because of the positioning of the lot, i would rather see less mass then an a.d.u., but it seems like other commissioners are, you know, not on the same page, -- >> if i may, when a look at the project, when i heard commissioner moore, i -- i heard her concern, not so much about the size, but about the privacy issues along the south wall and all those windows, but were you concerned about the mass going into the backyard or the fifth

floor? >> i believe the building is very large, but i believe the department could shave it back in a massing that is, for me, acceptable. i would prefer, though, given the rather slightly oversized nature of the living accessory spaces, to become a slightly tighter building, in which an a.d.u. could potentially find square footage that would take 3,000 square feet, to perhaps 2400 or something like that. it would be two units, plus an a.d.u. i think that is what is possible here, and since we are continuously battling with single-family homes that don't exist in san francisco, -- we heard a big presentation here this morning. i think we could use this as an example of an otherwise well-designed building to practice that. >> sorry, did somebody second a move? >> i was going to ask if that

was a second. >> i don't think anybody -- i guess i can second it. i second the move to continue it commissioner richards? >> i understand commissioner moore's point about the existing building is intruding, but if we demolish the building and come back with a see you for a new building with two or three units , or whatever, the backyard is kind of useless. is on a slope, it is dark, it will be i.v. growing all over everybody's building. it will be smaller, it but it will be smaller by 9 feet. there is only 8 feet now in the backyard, so you'll create a bigger useless backyard. >> i don't think that's what is being suggested. >> no -- >> where i am going with this is it i agree with commissioner moore. i think we should take d.r., approve the project with a new a.d.u. added in the existing -- the larger unit square footage, and get rid of the issues on the south side by having no windows

and no deck that opens to people 's living areas. >> so that proposal would then, basically, insert an a.d.u. into the existing bulk informant square footage of the proposed building. >> taking it out of the 3,000 square feet. >> and then getting rid of the windows on the south side. >> that is my motion, yes. >> commissioner moore? >> the only reason why i am trying to spell out something, and i'm not the only one who has the right to spell something out , is the fact that if we are continuing, one, we are not the full deck of commissioners care, but we need some construction -- instruction. if you only come back with the same thing and we're starting on the same loop next time, we have not gained anything, so i think we need to add a little bit more here that we, indeed, can present some consensus among five people of why we are sending it back, otherwise we could make a decision today and

say, it is what it is. >> commissioner richards? >> first thing, if we wait for the other two commissioners, we will have a 4-3 situation. we will just make the disagreement larger. we know how commissioners behave and what the views are on these things. it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, and i'm not picking on commissioner hillis in any way, shape, or form, but i think the findings are that there is too much social space in the top unit, that is the issue. >> i think we all agree on that. >> we are saying to convert some of that social space, keep everything else the way it is and convert it with rubrics and how you want to design it. you may have different units on different floors, but make sure the top space is 2400 square feet or less. keep everything else, and get rid of all the stuff on the side , the window, the deck, the opening, et cetera. i truly don't believe that the way -- i really don't believe it has an impact on the people in carson street. it is probably less intrusive.

>> the one concern i have is how you design a space within those floors that is actually a separate unit. >> that is what the architect is for mac. >> we have considered that, and in the foyer, the common foyer, then you would directly open out it is not exactly clear because the a.d.u. installation and the two unit building makes me think that i have to use space that is not ever used for living space, if that is still a regulation. but i think below the garage level, we do have spaces that are definitely not used for living. the a.d.u. law did not change for r.h. one, what our age two -- >> i know there is a strong encouragement to create them and they are very supportive.

>> that is what i was referring to. i saw on the map that it was storage, or whatever it is. >> it is just kind of a crawlspace. >> i think it is a question of what you call the a.d.u. versus the second unit. >> exactly. >> you can make it work. >> i would like a continuance, but no second on that knee -- on that motion. >> commissioners, there is a motion to continue for one month to july 18th. there was a second motion to take d.r., but i did not hear a second. >> can i just clarify? your proposal is, is it with an a.d.u. or not with an a.d.u.? >> a commendation. >> so the procedural matter would take precedent. we'll take of the matter of continuance to july 18th. on the motion to continue with some direction from the commission...

[roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes 4-1 with commissioner richards voting against. that will place us on our final action before you tonight, or today. item 14 -- just a second, please items 14 a and b. he will consider conditional use authorization and the sony ministration will consider a request for variance. >> good evening, commissioners. the item before you is a conditional use authorization for demolition of a single-family home at 45 -- the project would demolish the existing 1600 square foot single-family dwelling unit and construct in approximately 4,000 square-foot building with two dwelling units. the project proposes one offstreet parking space and two

class one bicycle parking spaces the project is also requesting a variance for exposure and a variance for a 2-foot 2-inch encroachment of the building into the required rear yard. sincere packets have been published, the department has received three phone calls and one e-mail from surrounding neighbors outlining concerns related to the rear yard variance request, and impact to the adjacent neighbors. after an analysis of all aspects of the project, the department recommends approval for the following. the project of maximizing the in the r.h. two zoning district, and contribute to the housing stock by adding an additional unit. the project site does not have a history of evictions according to the rent board. the project provides adequate front and rear setbacks to preserve the existing midblock open space, and the project is consistent with the planning code and with the objectives and policy of the general plan. the project sponsor will now be making a quick presentation and i will be available for any questions. thank you.

>> good afternoon, has now become good evening, planning commissioners and zoning administrator. i am dennis, the project architect. i'm here with lucas eastwood, the project sponsor and general building contractor. as was mentioned, the proposal seeks to demo an existing two-story single-family home, and a privately owned street to construct a new four-story two family home. we are here in front of the commission requesting a conditional use authorization to remove a dwelling unit, additionally, we are seeking a variance for the newly proposed building to extend 26 inches deeper into the lot than would normally be allowed under r.h. two zoning codes. first to address the see you for demo. our design process looked at options to alter the building under a renovation permit, however demolishing the structure emerged as a practical route as the following considerations were clarified in

the process. the written historical evaluation of the 1912 structure , which notes its overall high integrity from a lack of alterations over the years, concluded, nonetheless, that it does not stand out as being exceptionally representative of the period. many similar homes exist within a two block radius. the planning preservation team also concluded no historic resource to be present and we are satisfied the project is not -- is not removing any structure of historic value to san francisco. the second consideration, one of the project's goals is to align at the entry floor level with the existing sidewalk elevation. demo avoids lifting and lowering the building half a story to provide the floor plate shift, vehicular entry necessitates the street to four alignment, as well as a pedestrian entry without space consuming additional steps, often atypically narrow, 5-foot sidewalks. this critical alignment allows the entire building to be elevator accessible for adaptable living.

the third consideration is the scope and scale of the project, as the new four-story building with subgrade excavation requires structural work far exceeding the capacity of the existing foundations and building framing, as a renovation, the project would be considered tantamount to demolition, and the design team opted for the demo, new construction permitting route to provide the highest level and product with the shortest construction duration. if we had saw some aspect of the existing house was saving, we would have proceeded to keep it. now onto the variance request. this is a very unusual site whereby the lot depth is not only shallow at 68 feet 9 inches , but also starts at the midline of the street. the first 13 feet and 8 inches of the lot overhangs the street and the sidewalk. this block is one of over 250 street segments in san francisco tagged as private, and one applying the proper r.h. two development standards, is 75%

buildable lot depth leaves a mere 37-foot 10-inch building. the project is requesting a variance to construct a 40-foot deep building, 26 inches deeper than r.h. two zoning to align the northern adjacent four story 40-foot deep building, the result to the rear yard is 15 feet deep which meets the planning code minimum. as you can see in the floor plan , the benefits for the project allows for a more spacious one-bedroom lower unit any viable three-bedroom upper unit, both with appropriate bath and closet amenities. overall, the room proportions and spaciousness is built on all three floors, with the top floor conceding the additional building depth and a set shallow exterior balcony. approval of the variance does not negatively impacted impact adjacent buildings as we proposed on the north side, and provide a signed setback on the southside south side to mitigate the request of the extension. in this particular project, the specific context of a private

lot containing a sidewalk and half of the street was not anticipated by the planning code our buildable envelope is truncated by unusual site conditions, that is the hardship where we are requesting a rear yard variance. our team is very proud of this project, their communication with our planner, we were involved -- informed that the team was overall impressed with the quality of the design. they had minor comments, and we set aside with them for a couple rounds of revisions. the final version is in front of you today. the project meets, and in many cases, exceeds requirements for ground story visual interest with 50 4% of the lot with featuring planting and glazed façades, better roof ordinance, which combines over 260 square feet of solar ready zones, and planted roofs, are providing -- thank you very much for your time. >> you've 30 seconds. >> okay. we do have a roof deck on this project and it is designed with the new roof deck policies in

mind, access is via a rollback skylight. it is limited in size, and provides a setback that the new policy asked for. i am available and happy to answer any questions, and the contractor is also here today. thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment on this item? i have two speaker cards. michelle scott and pat. >> good afternoon, commissioners out in the hallway, we had a discussion with the project sponsor, i'm not sure what he wants to do in here. this is a conditional use hearing. i represent a number of the owners on this private street. it has to show it is in the public's best interest. there was a variance, no impact on variance with my client. the primary and sole issue is to

-- is the garage, which is moot removing parking space number 8. this is a private streets that has 13 private, grossly substandard spaces, and the idea is to continue this case so we can work out a deal with the neighbor so that he can be assured that he has parking with all the neighbors agreeing to give him the space in front. thereby, he doesn't have to remove probably two spaces, not just one, to provide one private space. and i believe that if we can continue this case for two weeks , we could broker some support of his project, and allow him to move forward with all the other city agencies. this is a private street that has been there for 80 years. it has worked out a relationship in san francisco. it is amazing that for almost 50 years, there has been agreement

on how to park on this street. if there can be sometime given, maybe we can work out a continuance of how do these 11 properties share these 13 spaces , because it is a conditional use, they have to meet some standards, and i question how they can meet standards in terms of affecting parking in an entire neighborhood by this project. on item eight of conditional use findings, not affecting traffic, because there is an agreement on how to do these 13 spaces now, without giving us the time to work out a deal, you may find all 13 blow up, and you have 13 more cars on the public street down the block. this street, the total width is 26 feet wide. that is -- you take out the two

sidewalks, you are down to 16 feet. with the current agreement of parking only on the west side, there is fire access. if there is a continuance, we can work this out. if not, we will probably have a situation where all these spaces go away. you will have 13 more people parking down the block on a public street. i also question policy 11, community through architectural design. give us a time to make this work out. give us two weeks so we can come up with the design, otherwise, i fear we are going to have 13 parking spaces lost. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is michelle scott. i am an attorney and they represent some of the owners. i also have the pleasure of working with mr. bosco which,

and i agree with his sentiment that we should continue this if possible so that we can see if we can come to some sort of agreement with the owner. i am optimistic, given the way our conversations were heading out in the hall that there might be some of the solution that can be reached, but -- yes, i am also in favor of continuing this , but with my time today, i just wanted to touch upon the parking issue, which is my primary purpose in speaking today. as was mentioned, it is an unusual street, with an unusual history. it is very narrow, and it is a private street. owned by all of the owners who live there. with their property lines extending into the very center of that shared street. it now consists of 11 buildings or 22 units.

there are 13 designated parking spots, and currently, the owners who live on the street, they have been operating almost like owners of a common interest development. there is no h.o.a., with that is how they have been existing in operating for the last 40 plus years. they all share these 13 spaces. the way the parking is now, it is a first come first served basis. whoever arrives first can select whatever spot they want and park there. it has been that way for decades , literally. and those spaces were first marked about 20 years ago. about six to seven years ago, there was an ongoing parking dispute between the owners. some people felt like they were not being given as ample an opportunity to utilize the spaces. somewhere parking three cars, some were not able to park any, so in an effort to combat these issues, they all sat down

together, had a meeting, and decided they would issue 22 passes, 22 parking passes, and each of those 11 buildings would get two. each building has two parking spaces, they use him on a first-come first serve basis, and that is how it's been, that is the agreement that was reached. so the way the project is designed currently, there is a garage that is being proposed, and that garage will essentially privatize and take away the shared parking space number 8. so if that is allowed to proceed , essentially the owner of the terrace is benefiting to the detriment of the entire street, and they will be losing viable parking. simply put, parking is a finite, fragile resource. the spaces are small, they are unusually small, the street is small, there's a delicate balance -- and elegant a delicate balance that must be

preserved. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item. come on up. >> hello, commissioners. i think i have worked with one of you in the same office. my name is lorraine, i know it is late in the day and i am probably the last speaker. i am an immediate owner -- neighbor and owner, and i just want to say that overall, i am supportive of the project, particularly increasing the number of units in the building height as san francisco has a serious housing crisis, and it is something that i would one day like to do myself with my building. however, i oppose the 2-foot variance, and it's in exception to the planning code because it will directly affect natural light into the rear of my bedroom window, which is literally inches away from the

shared property line, as well as , the living room and bedrooms of the three units behind the area, as a few people have said, it may not sound like much, but over four stories, it will have an impact, especially on the street that is a special situation. it is a private alley, it is congested. that is primarily because all buildings extend to the midline of the private street, and historically, the 45% minimum rear yard depth -- the 45 minimum rear yard depth required by the planning code has been interpreted on the streets to be measured from the middle of the street to the rear of each property line, so what that means is there is less green

space than other parts of san francisco, it is much more dense , so for the terrace, 45, even before considering the variance, the rear yard cancel late -- calculation was done any depth of 68 feet, as opposed to 55 from the front of the façade, which would be much more difficult in other parts of san francisco. so, if there are any other variances on the street that i am aware of, they are typically created, they are on extended lots with one and a half that have been created from one and a half lots combined, so they face on two adjacent backyards, not on onto buildings, again, they don't obstruct the natural light

of neighbors. i'm really tired right now. i came back really late to come back to this meeting. let's say, so, light and air are protected in san francisco, and a variance is an exception to the san francisco planning code. >> thank you, your time is up. >> sorry. >> you get three minutes. >> any variance will have no immediate benefit to the neighbors, and it will take wait natural light and green space. >> thank you. you get three minutes. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you for taking the time i live directly across from 45. i have lived there since 2009. in december of last year, my wife and i bought number 50. we own both the property straight across from this development property.

it is a harmonious street. it is a little bit more of a commentary on what is happening in san francisco. there is a economic and social diversity of age. the small property has had people of color and everybody gets along really well, so it is quite a nice neighborhood. what -- the reason we want more time is because our property extends into the street, and in order to put a garage, one would have to drive across our property back into the the new garage that is. when we bought number 50 in december of last year, our real estate agent said that the property -- the parking like that we have our property, you know, will about half an dollars on the property that i have and having somebody come and absorb -- to put a garage in, and then

possibly take more then a spot in order to get vehicles to move into that garage would very negatively affect our property values and our ownership, so i agree that taking more time to work this out with the neighborhood would be beneficial to all of us.

it is like an old school. i am sad to change it. there is so much harmony on the street. to be dis-harmony, is disheartening. the fact this house is going up, it is really changing the texture of the street. it has a mediterranean feel. now it is becoming a large scale project that feels quite

different. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i am james carter. my wife and i own 4348 culebra terrace. we moved there in the late 1990s. in the decade after that we had a lot of controversy around parking. we wound up getting -- we had threatened litigation between those living off the street who thought they would park on the street and the owners were not willing to go with that. under adverse possession, we wound up persuading the people around us that they could not park on culebra. if they did we could tow their cars. for 20 years or so we have had

peace because the people around us have not tried to challenge our arrangement. now with the new owner we scrambled some eggs there. the company that is buying in now has agreed they will meet with us and our consultants to see if we can workout an exception to avoid adverse possession and other issues. that is why i and most of the owners are very much for a cooperative effort for the next couple weeks to resolve the issues involving parking. thank you. >> any other public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: there are quite a few issues very, very not heard about. i believe that we may have to continue this because we are unfamiliar to really settle which is a private agreement

between those people living on the street to make this work. the question for the commission is the following? this project comes in thin in the description of which normally would be more description about materials, identification about windows. i am a little bit concerned about the large amount of unit equity. we have a 754 square foot unit and 2755 square foot unit. i would have liked to see a little bit more balance in what we are doing here. this is a project which is definitely falling under the c.u. resolution. it has to be necessary and desirable. since we are indeed in generally in discussions about better equity and balance as we had earlier. i would like that to be perhaps be part of the continuance as well. >> i would like to ask how this

add verse possession of parking happens. >> if i can speak specifically to the adverse possession issue, but this is a private street. it is not a public right-of-way. the street itself is part of the properties that each property owner owns. it sounds like they have a specific arrangement that we are not really aware of in terms of how the properties can be used by other property owners to park their vehicles. to that point, i wanted to get clarification. others can reply as well, just to be clear this is a private street. no one other than property owners can park on the street. >> that's correct. >> you said there are 13 spaces. >> 13 spaces. they are small spaces but there are 13 marked off spaces. >> i think i counted 10 buildings that front directly on

the street. do you have any idea google street doesn't go there. you can't digitally walk there. do you know how many buildings have their own garages? >> three. one at the end of the block is not part of it. they got double parking on chestnut and on this alley. there are a couple. one at the end is not a garage. it is a faux garage. there is an abandoned garage, maybe three. actually four. there is a modern one next to the project. apparently that has never had a car in it. that is why they park on the street like everybody else. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i move to continue this until two weeks.

i want to make sure. with the direction of the commission is to have more unit density equity. it might take more than two weeks. it will involve redesign of the project. i want to make sure there is an understanding by the project sponsor. the commission is asking for redesign of the units. >> yes. >> good evening. so we are clear. you are asking for greater unit equity between the units. >> preferring one-to-one. >> you are also asking for compromise on parking as well? >> yes and i want to add excessive glazing in the back, like one big window. scale it back a little. >> what about -- you will get to it. what about the variance, how does that affect if we go back

to redesign? >> that is up to the ca. >> on the compromise, i mean they are proposing one parking space and one garage door. i would be curious what we know about compromise they can have a parking garage or they can't. i am not sure of the compromise situation in this situation. regarding the variance it is important to note they are proposing two feet two inches deeper than the code lets them go. however, they could do a refaçade that met that requirement with two bay windows going out three feet and be fairly wide. the math would be close. you may get more mass with the bay windows. i feel like the rear yard

variance is not significant. it is similar in terms of the mass they would get with the bay windows anyway. i don't think the discussion here on unit parity or parking would affect the mass in question in the rear. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: the question is that the ad joining maybes are concerned about privacy with those two feet. the depiction of the add joining buildings is not clear enough to understand how windows two feet could affect looking back at unit unit. that is a little unclear. i would like to see sensitivity towards privacy in the rear as well, and perhaps slightly better depiction on what it does with add joining buildings relative to where windows are and what types of rooms would be

affected. perhaps the neighbor that spoke about it could give explanation when the neighbors rediscuss changes to the building. the department has to take the design review again. there is a second cycle on quite a few issue as here. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i would prefer to have housing over parking. this may be a special special situation with two units and two cars. there may not be enough spaces on the street to allow two more cars. >> space number 8 in front of this is proposed to be removed for a private car. what is proposed is arrangement that space 8 is deeded to him.

therefore we don't need to take the parking spice off the street and don't have to build the house and garage. >> that would be great if we could have housing versus parking spaces in the house. great. >> second. july 18th. >> may i propose something other than july 18th. we have a full calendar that day. haven't we continued three items to that day. >> it was a light calendar there was to be a joint hearing on that day that got moved. with the pac. joking, it is lake. >> okay fine. >> there is a motion seconded to continue this matter with direction from commission to july 18th. (roll call). so moved commissioners. >> public hearing and continue

the variance hearing to july 18th. >> very good. >> that is it. >> we are adjourned. [♪] >> coming to san francisco on june 11th, the earthquake safety his fair from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. as the auditorium at 99 grove street. meet with contractors, design professionals professionals, engineers and architects, along

with city agencies and hundreds of booths on the main floor. attend one of the workshops at 11:00 a.m. the seismic safety strategies study. what you need to know is the city strengthens buildings 240 feet high and higher, and to get ready to the next -- for the next big one. 12:00 p.m., changes in the updated citywide vacant commercial storefront ordinance. 1:00 p.m., comply with the accessible business entrance program to enable everyone to enter your business. 2:00 p.m., home modelling process made stress-free, meet the experts and understand the permit review issuance and inspections process. 3:00 p.m., making the best use of the accessory dwelling unit and legalization program to at affordable housing. learn from these three workshops at the june 11th d.b.i. earthquake safety fair, and begin to get ready for the big one by taking immediate steps to protect both family and property we hope to see you there, so register now.

[♪] welcome to the epic center did you know that many buildings in san francisco are not bolted to the foundation on today's episode we'll learn how the option to bolt our foundation in an earthquake. >> hi, everybody welcome to another episode of stay safe i'm the director of earthquake safety in the city and county of san francisco i'm joined by a friend matt. >> thank you thanks for being with us we're in a garage but at the el cap center south of market in san francisco what we've done a simulated the garage to show you what it is

like to make the improvements and reduce the reflexes of earthquake we're looking at foundation bolts what do they do. >> the foundation bolts are one of the strengthening system they hold the lowest piece of wood onto the foundation that prevents the allows from sliding during an earthquake that is a bolt over the original construction and these are typically put in along the foundation to secure the house to the foundation one of the things we'll show you many types of bolts let's go outside and show the vufrdz we're outside the epic center in downtown san francisco we'll show 3 different types of bolts we have a e poxy

anchor. >> it is a type of anchor that is adhesive and this is a rod we'll embed both the awe hey that embeds it into the foundation that will flip over a big square washer so it secured the mud sell to the foundation we'll need to big drill luckily we have peter from the company that will help us drill the first hole. >> so, now we have the hole drilled i'll stick the bolt in and e post-office box it. >> that wouldn't be a bad idea but the dust will prevent the e post-office box from bonding we need to clean the hole out first. >> so, now we have properly

cleaned hole what's the next step. >> the next step to use e post-office box 2 consultants that mixes this together and get them into tubes and put a notice he will into the hole and put the e post-office box slowly and have a hole with e post-office box. >> now it is important to worm or remember when you bolt our own foundation you have to go to 9 department of building inspection and get a permit before you start what should we look at next what i did next bolt. >> a couple of anchors that expand and we can try to next that will take a hole that hole is drilled slightly larger marathon the anchor size for the e post-office box to flow around the anchor and at expansion is

going into the hole the same dinning room we'll switch tamet so, now we have the second hole drilled what next. >> this is the anchor and this one has hard and steel threads that cuts their way into the concrete it is a ti ton anchor with the same large square so similar this didn't require e post-office box. >> that's correct you don't needed for the e post-office box

to adhere overnight it will stick more easily. >> and so, now it is good to go is that it. >> that's it. >> the third anchor is a universal foundation plate when you don't have room above our foundation to drill from the

top. >> so, now we have our foundation plate and the tightened screw a couple of ways to take care of a foundation what's the best. >> the best one depends on what your house is like and our contractors experience they're sometimes considered the cadillac anchor and triplely instead of not witting for the e post-office box this is essentially to use when you don't have the overhead for the foundation it really depends on the contractor and engineering what they prefer. >> talking to a qualified

san francisco is surrounded on three sides by water, the fire boat station is intergal to maritime rescue and preparedness, not only for san francisco, but for all of the bay area. [sirens] >> fire station 35 was built in 1915. so it is over 100 years old. and helped it, we're going to build fire boat station 35. >> so the finished capital planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities must exist on sea level rise. >> the station 35, construction cost is approximately $30 million. and the schedule was complicated because of

what you call a float. it is being fabricated in china, and will be brought to treasure island, where the building site efficient will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 and a half for installation. >> we're looking at late 2020 for final completion of the fire boat float. the historic firehouse will remain on the embarcadero, and we will still respond out of the historic firehouse with our fire engine, and respond to medical calls and other incidences in the district. >> this totally has to incorporate between three to six feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years. that's what the city's guidance is requiring. it is built on the float, that can move up and down as the water level rises,

and sits on four fixed guide piles. so if the seas go up, it can move up and down with that. >> it does have a full range of travel, from low tide to high tide of about 16 feet. so that allows for current tidal movements and sea lisle rises in the coming decades. >> the fire boat station float will also incorporate a ramp for ambulance deployment and access. >> the access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side, with more of a pivot or hinge connection, and then it is sliding over the top of the float. in that way the ramp can flex up and down like a hinge, and also allow for a slight few inches of lateral motion of the float. both the access ramps, which there is two, and the utility's only flexible connection connecting from the float to the back of the

building. so electrical power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connection to the boat. >> high boat station number 35 will provide mooring for three fire boats and one rescue boat. >> currently we're staffed with seven members per day, but the fire department would like to establish a new dedicated marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidences. looking into the future, we have not only at&t park, where we have a lot of kayakers, but we have a lot of developments in the southeast side, including the stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or maritime incident along these new developments. >> there are very few designs for people sleeping on the water. we're looking at cruiseships, which are

larger structures, several times the size of harbor station 35, but they're the only good reference point. we look to the cruiseship industry who has kind of an index for how much acceleration they were accommodate. >> it is very unique. i don't know that any other fire station built on the water is in the united states. >> the fire boat is a regionalesset tharegional assete used for water rescue, but we also do environmental cleanup. we have special rigging that we carry that will contain oil spills until an environmental unit can come out. this is a job for us, but it is also a way of life and a lifestyle. we're proud to serve our community. and we're willing to help and we're willing to help

>> this is the regular business mooting of the small business commission called to order at 2:08 p.m. we thank small media services and sfgov. please take this opportunity to silence phones. -- silence phones. it is limited to three minutes per speaker. speakers are requested not required to state names. completion of speaker card will help ensure proper spelling of the name in the written record of the meeting. place each speaker card in the basket. speaker cards will be called in the order placed in the basket. there is a sign in sheet on the front table. please show the office of small