Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals 82416  SFGTV  September 16, 2016 4:00pm-6:41pm PDT

4:00 pm
>> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. wednesday, september 14, 2016, meeting of board of appeals the presiding officer officer is commissioner president honda and joined by community college and commissioner lazarus and commissioner wilson to my left is brad providing the board with any leg advice we're we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. this evening sitting in the
4:01 pm
front right now is carli short the superintendant of urban forestry for public works and to my left is urban forestry chris buck with the urban forestry and expect to be joined by scott the zoning administrator and going to be representing the planning department and planning commission and senior building inspector joe duffy will join us representing the representing the department of building inspection please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk.
4:02 pm
speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i
4:03 pm
do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking please stand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you commissioner honda and commissioners 3 housekeeping items has to do with with 30i8z withdrawn and will not be heard item number 9 regarding a site permitted on diamond street and item 10 appeal that's regarding a notice of violation and penalty on alabama street and also the parties to item number the appeal on 16th avenue have jointly requested that you continue this matter to november 9th they would like nor
4:04 pm
time for the department of building inspection to be able to vague some complaints that were filed we need a vote to move to november 9th if you agree. >> move to continue the item to november 9th a thank you any public comment on item this motion to move sienna motion from commissioner lazarus to move item 6 to november 9, 2016, on that moti on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. thank you that item is moved to november 9th. >> then we'll go back to the regular calendar comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when okay. please step forward. >> good evening. i'm ellen i
4:05 pm
came to this board with my husband on may 11th to appeal a decision from the planning department and i was instructed by the board of appeals as well as the zoning administrator to go ahead and file a conditional use application for our small business located on 350 with respect on june 17th we filed the conditional use authorization along with a request for a lecturing that was promptly issued on july 0, '11 here is the copy of the letter of determination from the zoning administrator scott sanchez and on august 30th we received an e-mail from mac from the planning department indicating that our district
4:06 pm
supervisor supervisor norman yee just introduced a new legislation on august which will block our path to legalize our business so this is the letter if matthew that's dated august 30th indicating that supervisor introduced an urgent legislation to impose a 4 day moratorium any small business or any first floor location from business and professional uses i'm going to show the proposed legislation that will be file number 16094. >> due to the quote/unquote nature of that moratorium there is a hearing that we'll be scheduled for next monday to
4:07 pm
hear this case in front of the land use board this emergency sharing was floungsz a neighborhood block and we learned about this yesterday about the hearing that is scheduled for next monday so i wanted to make our case known to the board the difficulty that we are experiencing to move forward with our conditional use application thank you. >> thank you. >> any other general public comment? >> good evening commissioners i'm stefanone a registered lobbyist in san francisco a consultant to 360 a west portal and want to continue what ellen and peter's are going through i watched the tape when they contact from the board of appeals and their visit was
4:08 pm
basically whether they're in compliance where they met the thresholds of 6 feet didn't and there was a merchant that brought up the fact a financial moratorium and had that argument ms. chang reached outburst i said take down sign that you put up you didn't have a permit take it down they did immediately and second thing you need to a directive to diligently file and take an appointment for conditional use and the third thing i met with the merchant group one of the leaders and said look a there's information saying this is a financial service business we believe a business professional use service let's write a letter to the zoning administrator and let's get definition and clarification on july 7th that clarification
4:09 pm
came through 5 days latter or july 11th there was no appeal on this so we were on our way to continue our outreach into the community we're getting loads and loads of support they live in the neighborhood and know people and everything now on august 2nd a letter was drafted that we received the latter part of august an urgent ordinance for a meeting to take place none notified us we found it on a block and show up monday with neighbors in the community to try to plead our case i was hoping this meeting would be more informational i think there is quite a while business professional services on the first floor in the west portal that don't have conditional use they normally went into business maybe another business professional service was there and none complained and therapy
4:10 pm
operating i'd like to at least a study to come up on the business professional services and the goal not to push people out the goal to get people in compliance the goal to keep those businesses in a community we don't need vacancy creation we need an opportunity to make sure that everybody has a pathway for code inclines thank you. >> any other general public comment seeing none, any commissioner questions or comments. >> first of all, i'd like to say thank you to doctor ann general and cindy wu and congratulate joel cop he will and mirna on their appointments to the planning commission how is it - >> thank you. any other commissioner commits to item 3 the boards
4:11 pm
consideration of august 24th re678 additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion to move. >> any public comment on the minutes. >> seeing none, we have a motion if commissioner lazarus to adapt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner honda. >> commissioner campagnoli commissioner swig thank you that motion passes then the next item is rehearing request item 4 the the truth on ellis street peter's appellant is requesting a rehearing of the appeal - the board voted to - the permit holder is the housing authority and the assessable and
4:12 pm
ground floor addition and lobby renovation and elevator and energy and envelope improvements and the case workers and fishgsz and lighting upgrade. >> north and south of the project and we'll start with the requester 6 minutes since you're working through an interpreter. >> 3 minutes. >> it feels what i want to explain you want give today for an application and this application expiration date was in - sorry you as you can see the broken what you gave they
4:13 pm
work in june and did 12 in the backyard when was suspend and in july they broken it in due next look to subject hall to matter deep and i think this is a big project discriminating against the people they broken stucco of the building because this building have for seniors and disabled people they want the same apartment in the building and they want i think 50 percent rent on the market today for this people and they used take free money and very cheap credit
4:14 pm
for seniors and people with disabilities and building office it is not good. >> thank you very much sorry. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening gabriel project sponsor for tndc first with regards to the two entrances the appellant
4:15 pm
references i want to put up not new information by the appellants we have a request the date he notes precedes the first hearing and didn't meet the threshold of a rehearing request what it is referencing two incidents we performed due diligence and one case environmental testing by boring holes in the parking lot to determine the contamination of the soil, and, secondly, incury in the parking lot to understand the foundation and i want to make mention those items were under a light agreement signed by barbara smith head of housing authority and the tndc allowing you guess to perform the work the work that was performed didn't require a building permit
4:16 pm
that requires a licensed agreement which we oakland future we sent the license agreement to our attorney and in the package that is here tonight he concurs this didn't require a permit but covered under a license agreement i believe that addresses the main point earlier i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thanks. >> thank you mr. sanchez anything no. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the rehearing requester has
4:17 pm
brought up issues that were discussed during the original presentation i didn't find any new information and therefore would not support a rehearing. >> i also concur and agree that the bar for rehearing is quite high and this has not met the threshold. >> care to make a motion. >> vice president. >> move to deny it no information has you read. >> that motion from commissioner fung to deny the request commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner honda commissioner campagnoli and commissioner swig that request is denied with a vote of 5 to zero. >> move on to the next item which is item 5 another rehearing the subject property
4:18 pm
on nordoff street for a rehearing gains versus the bureau of urban forests decided on 2016 at this point the board voted two to three 3 with two commissioners december sefrnt and grant the appeal moving the tree will significantly commissioner tang at character of the neighborhood and lacking it the motion failed it was upheld and that is are for a presidio on nordoff, llc moving the trees to the rear of the property and start with the requesters. >> good evening and welcome reuben, julius & rose on a reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision. this afternoon. >> thank you please proceed.
4:19 pm
>> overhead please. good evening, commissioners and i'm once again addressing the relocation of the redwood tree on nordoff we realize in the threshold is very high since on this one request was granted, however, we believe we meet the standards no information has come to our attention the health of the transport is new information and if known before could have effected the outcome of the hearing on august 17th commissioner swig asked why the moving company has moved a tree of this size and the scope within the city of san francisco or even in the san francisco region ever in their 3 years and continued in an urban setting they referenced a previous
4:20 pm
project the answer is no no movement and two prior most of were made in the bayview and none with structures near or in the paths of the relocation, in fact, after the website hundreds of tree locations nun have taken place taken place the tree is in a dense inner area the roots are entangled in the infrastructure and this raised in any curiosity and two redwoods that have been move forward there's been a significant fitting of the foliage since they've been moved forward this can be seen in the photos that are submitted in our brief you see the condition of the tree from one year and one month taken at the same time of year and a significant change some needles were not gastroand white they were brown dead
4:21 pm
branches and also a white powder substance that covered the bark of the tree it was because of irrigation and look at the next transported redwood i didn't see any of the white powder on this on the transported not on any other to further - i cracked a professor who said the redwoods have a strong protection and simple growth is very unusual and the transporting or the reduction of root systems could damage the root systems and like to do more research for giving a cause please support this rehearing we've met the thresholds of new information and the information has a tremendous impact on the survival of this tree i'm proud that san francisco looks at the
4:22 pm
trees but without knowing in irrevocable damage is caused we need to know more about the other trees thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, members of the board tom reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the presidio we ask the board to deny the rehearing i don't want to get into an argument new information the health of the tree has been the health of the tree since august 17th at this time and now prior to august 17th and as the permit acknowledges we discussed the environmental skyline to relocate trees in urban areas
4:23 pm
already an urban design as experience but as to the health of the trees the allegations are not found with me is david cox from the environmental design and he'll speak to both trees and their health thank you. >> good evening i can tell you that of all the trees that our company moves nation wide i would say primarily it is in urban areas as new york city and washington, d.c. and houston, texas and austin you know all of the different philadelphia those are urban environments and can tell you we'll move forward university an urban setting and
4:24 pm
philadelphia squawking the trees the university of california berkley where we moved a tree almost 5 or 6 years ago that's one of the tree the other tree we moved for the soma area transit rapid transit board smart as it is called up in a region we were there last week repairing the irrigation and putting in subtle drainage the tree i'll show you pictures last thursday the tree is in excellent heartaches and some of the white substance we looked for and it could be calcium adopts when the water sprays and hits the trunk and the water e vaps over time you get white not
4:25 pm
powder more of a california sum build up when it it comes to referencing the roots it is an albino species and going through a difference phase throughout the year so there is experiment on that names thomas that can tell you about that tree more than i'll ever know a unique tree one of supposedly i don't know about a fact but 11 in the world. >> sir, your time is up. >> i have a question anyway. >> sir, your time is up. >> i have a question anyway you can further explain the circles of the tree that's why the pictures show a lack of dense and a mugged of things in
4:26 pm
a drought we found the irrigation on the tree broke over the last 7 or 8 months from other construction a late early line i'm concerned not you visited the tree at the university of berkley but could be similar or could be simply a drought stress or things like that but don't believe that the tree is in any or either one of the trees are in a threat of demise and keep that in mind those trees were moves years ago we're talking about. >> sir. >> how long was the tree and done in 2014. >> you've answered any question thank you. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners carli short department of public works just a couple the comments
4:27 pm
the department didn't feel there is no information we look at the two trees and visit them to assess their condition i think that it is important to recognize that what we found looking at the trees from different that angles made the density of the canopy look different from some angles it looked space and from other angles full this is why we don't like to assess a trae from a photograph it depended on where our standing and it is our feeling both trees are surviving if in their currents location and saw some stress in the berkley tree but again from one angle it looked like the photograph that was taken prior than a separate elaboration it
4:28 pm
is appears to be in a slightly more winds comboetsd sites and backs r backed by two other trees and having said that we didn't feel that tree is in decline and feel that was at risk of not surviving with the tree we surmised been an irrigation break and the trees was under stress because of lack of irrigation we saw new growth that was a response to recovery so it was our assessment it appears to be recovering and we speculated that was a break in irrigation it is important that those trees get supplemental irrigation after relocation and lastly i want to address the comment white powder is fined on trees relocated i believe that it could well be calcium deposit
4:29 pm
and lighten it gets white it is not unusual new our area especially in the summer months a number of trees participated in it downtown in a park and on the shady side of those trees there was a much more pronunciations same white substance not only on the trees we don't feel this is in any way an indication of a health problem we don't feel there is no new information brought forward thank you. >> when you relocation a tree when would you expect to see a problem from the move. >> so a lot of that depends on the size and the age of the tree relocated and with a tree of this size and age we could see a decline likely to see it quickly
4:30 pm
if under serious stress i want to keep an eye on on a tree ballistic 3 to 5 years after relocation. >> so in line with that question which is really great when you observe the other two trees you were already out to the subject tree what is the age difference between those 3 trees are they mile-an-hour you know they're all redwoods or of the same genre one would have been more holistically i at risk than the other 3. >> that's something hard to predict without having records certainly the one tree at the berkley is substantially smaller and in truck discriminate than
4:31 pm
the the subject property but a similar height the con to do tree the truck is he the diagram is smaller we cannot access to take the truck measurements but height is compatible i don't like to speculate about the age of trees based on the truck the tree maybe older than the others without pouring to decker or denominators the age of the tree it is speculation. >> thank you carli short public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak all right. step forward if you haven't filled out a speaker please that would be helpful. >> you can use the overhead,
4:32 pm
sir. >> for distribution i have a power point. >> if i could request to distribute it a large picture not coming across on the overhead thank you. >> good evening commissioners may i have the overhead yes, ma'am i'm chris parks on straight street street and i'm in support of appellants we want to make you aware of a couple of concerns about new information a possibility i believe there could be a settlement to preserve those trees the other thing has to do with with the
4:33 pm
planning code or the department of public works code in its application and the ramifications of the project sponsors appeal i mean the project sponsor for the citywide protected trees i live on state street a couple of magnificent cypress trees we work hard over the course of the year that appeal came before you we reached an settlement and i'm worried about this novel thing of planting significant trees. >> i want to reference the department of public works a-10 a i don't find any reference to transporting the trees this talks about what is required in order to remove the tree i'll
4:34 pm
just highlight here what it does it list 7 factors for the public works users the authorization of the removal of a protected tree the redwood tree would meet each of those not be eligible. removal the species are there the virtual characterizations it is within the 10 feet of right-of-way which the entire community enjoys and it the cultural and egging colon characters no hazard pa has been determined in the previous hearings this trees needs and is eligible and the reason why we have the pre-election codes so i want to reiterate that section 810 the protection tree criteria will disallow the protected significant redwood tree >> and then he wanted to make
4:35 pm
a request the request you, please grant this rehearing so a new rehearing to allow the sponsors to seek an opinion if the city attorney afternoon the preselection code to allow the trees to be removed and bland elsewhere and planted outing outside of the public right-of-way and also allow times for the project sponsor and the appellant to reach a resolution that preserves this tree thank you. >> thank you. >> sir, i have a question, sir. >> yes. >> you mentioned a potential settlement can you elaborate. >> i believe some conversations but i'm privy to them that potentially leads to a settlement that preserves this tree. >> you heard you didn't hear
4:36 pm
anything. >> yeah. you know what anything about what could possibly happen or not happen. >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> anyone else that want to speak on this item please step forward, please. >> i'm not prepared he know this tree i live and walk by it evidence on any way to work i know the interest of the tree i'm concerned seen sign about it and want to add that this is a very magnificent beautiful tree it makes you swell with pride that exists exists in a city like san francisco is it so very large and hard to imagine that the roots don't go under the sidewalk or the street i don't know how you could move it
4:37 pm
obviously experts there but say anything that could potentially effect the health of this tree is sick eagle to me to consider we hope you consider that when you madam chair your decision. >> state your name for the record janet. >> any more speakers. >> seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> may i ask a question of the counselor what i hear was presented as potentially new information because what we are heard was more of same except it was a difference of opinion i'm not sure difference of opinion is new information but the question as to whether the are
4:38 pm
interpretation of tree removal that something that precludes a tree from being removed precludes a tree from being moved as brought up by the last speaker is that considered new information because i don't believe that was presented in our last hearing. >> i think not to interrupt but the matter the commission was brought up in - there's a tree removal not a tree relocation we believe that was approached in the last hearing as well remember it was exposure forum because no rerelocation that will somewhat cover that. >> i would say i'm not prepared to offer on opinion on
4:39 pm
the codes i'm not sure what provisions of the code but point out that the rules of the board say a failure to exercise due diligence shall be grounds for that a department of building inspection of request and the code has not changed since the last meeting not an issue raised the first reading you can deny based on the lack overview due diligence. >> the information has been where that information could have been brought forth and what i heard in terms of presentation tonight all of the issues can be brought up and some was brought forward i'm not prepared to support this. >> nor i. >> i concur. >> i'm move to deny the
4:40 pm
rehearing on the boos no new information or manifest injustice. >> thank you commissioner lazarus on that motion to deny the question by commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig no, that request is denied with a vote of 4 to one and item 6 was moved by the board we'll move on to item 7 which is appeal number 16 dash zero julia versus the building department on steel's avenue appealing the issuance on january 2016 to wu of an alteration permitted to add a bath and deck on the second floor and the rear yard plans and start with the appellant ms. >> you have -
4:41 pm
>> thank you. >> my husband thank you hearing your case commissioner i'm julie. >> you can move the meekly. >> can you hear me now my name is julia this is my husband on melrose and we are here to ask you to please reject the planning of a large massive deck that faces our backyard i'd like to give you a tiny bit of history we moved to our house from the mission 10 years ago and putting all of our money and saving and heart into this house and moved there we wanted to be many an area lots of forests and trees there's a picture showing
4:42 pm
how the backyard looked before this is our backyard and these are all the trees on the steel's property that were there two years ago jude wu and her husband bought the property and chopped down all the maturity trees this is what the property looks like now there is another picture the deck and can we've with big deal been looking for the last two years they took ouch the windows and been starring at the backyard when rain and wind enters we're asking that they don't build a deck that will face our bedrooms and face our backyard and there's no more privacy since all the trees were chopped down i want to ask permission this friday, he wit
4:43 pm
by accident an article in sf gate and asking permission to present additional information that i didn't there is a illuminate although the city of san francisco against judy wu and her husband for contradicting for buying unit in san francisco that of permitted for single-family dwellings and to permitted they ask to do simple stinks adrc a deck and snaefdz that they chopped up the units and accepted housing vouchers for verbs a big case that was published and asking permission if i can please show you this case. >> you don't need to ask permission. >> i also including a whatever that a forensics who is an
4:44 pm
attorney and neighbor wrote about this case and will present you i don't want understand your honor, asking to submit documents. >> not fair to the permit holders interests an information to both parties can have access if you can use it in our oral debate that's sufficient. >> yeah. i understand we didn't know about this until september 1st, i will read this letter you can hear it from my friend an attorney paul anymore dear commissioner honda i'm an attorney live half a block and writing on behalf of the appellant the board of appeals consider the illuminate against the portland or permit holder so
4:45 pm
grant them permitted to remodel the garage adrc a bedroom and a massive deck the city's lawsuit office of the small business commission versus them allegations that wu and you have illegally experienced properties in order to profit from federal housing subsidies for homeless veterans a copy is attached the complaint allegations a pattern of but and you getting building permits to make limited changes to single-family homes and icing the primary toe illegally convert the properties into multi units and the lawsuits a wu and you have maids improper misrepresentations and at a minimum the board should continue it's hearing on the
4:46 pm
appeal until it is time to consider the lawsuit and gain a definite understanding of wu and yous intentions we're concerned and oerng concerned about our deck and now about our whole neighborhood and what kind of repercussions on the neighbors as well as us not only our privacy has been taken but right now in the state it has over the last 3 years as you can see we're concerned about the safety safety and our health we've seen rats now in our backyard so we are asking to please consider the information we didn't have before. >> thank you.
4:47 pm
>> you finished thank you. >> thank you. >> go over over the brief the pictures were tough to go through illness what ages i have a couple of questions the maturity trees were in the permit holder yard. >> that's correct. >> do you have maturity trees. >> we have some but the ones that prevented the view of their house that's correct what was upsetting a neighbor would come and hawk down everything without talking to the other neighbors. >> the question was answered thank you. >> the reason why. >> i'm sorry you'll have time in rebuttal. >> okay. thank you for listening to our case. >> we'll hear from the permit
4:48 pm
holders now. >> permit holders in the room please step forward. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening, commissioners my name is tren my family bought the property on the street one one 9 over two years ago we are planning to do this apply for permitted to do the remodeling because that property has been abandon for many years by the previous owner not by us we applied for permits immediately but then we latter changed it to include a deck because the house is very small on the only 8 hundred and 34 square feet in the living area we request to add a downstairs
4:49 pm
bedroom and add a deck the deck is very minimum sized on this 12 by 16 even we expand 12 feet it is still beyond the property line even though our next door neighbors property line if i look at the picture i included a picture 4 and 10 as you can see the next door building is about 14 feet deep. >> you can also use overhead to put the picture on. >> okay. thank you. >> so the right-hand side is of the building our neighbor on stealing street about 14 feet over ours so our deck is only 12
4:50 pm
feet so our elevation is lie 5 to 8 feet blow the appellants on meryl street if you look at the picture from the picture 7 and 11 that's the view from - this is the picture 7 that's the view from our from our upstairs from our upstairs the same level of our deck as you can see it is the - the fence on the right-hand side that fence is already at our on my head it is already 0 above my head on the right-hand side this one you can see it a little bit
4:51 pm
clearer here this line is the fence that's - this one not that one sorry. >> this one on the right hand this one is when i was standing on any backroom that's the same level of the deck it shows that fence is above any head above any head they're building appellants building home is about 5 to 8 feet above ours and if we are looking from the basement from our ground floor we're going to add the bedroom it is when i'm standing this picture is showing i'll standing when i'm standing on the ground
4:52 pm
floor on the supposed bedroom as you can see only a table upstairs of the appellants home so if you are talking about privacy being invaded there's - a doesn't make sense and besides we are 90 feet away from building to build to building to building and if i look at picture 12 this is the provided by the appellants family they're looking from their deck their home not deck i'm sorry they can see our this is their deck see our top the roof see our rooftop. >> so our request for the deck to be built is remarkable it is 415 we have discussed
4:53 pm
about the trees the tree is it is maturity but it is aging tree it is kind of a setting is in the middle in the mid way of the yard one tree in the midway of the yard like a few inches to the next building and causing a lot of problems and then i say one of the neighbors complained about the tree we tried to trim it and vuvent cut it down either the communication or communication and also it looks like somehow the workers pretty much not salvageable so we eventually cut it down and discussed with the neighbor when the neighbor brought up the appeal we discussed how to do the replacement tree
4:54 pm
and then we settled down with the appellant suggested the husband suggested users became boo we searched and said it was not good it spreads out in the whole backyard so we have a pine and the headquarters i think firmer pine we could get the san francisco up we found some 5 feet but the largest we wanted to have a bigger one or something they say no, they don't have that so that's what we can do and also - how many minutes. >> 30 seconds. >> thirty all right.
4:55 pm
30 seconds >> 30 seconds i'm sorry yeah, we bought street trees in april and started watering them and it is almost a foot of higher. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> i have a question, sir. >> how long have you owned this property. >> 2 a little bit over two years july will be two years two months. >> and not super important reason why that was left vacant. >> the permitted to the laundry inside stuff and later on have issues with the water stuff so - >> and is foundation area. >> and is engineers. >> so the process of getting
4:56 pm
okay. that answers any question and later on they poured the deck. >> and then. >> okay. >> that answered the question thank you very much. >> okay can we hear from the departments now mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner honda and mbes scott sanchez planning department. i carefully reviewed the plans on file their code compliant in regards to planning code compliance and we will have no issue if the project is constructed as per the plans with that said as the appellant not the the subject property owner we're familiar with we have had a serial violation on their properties and joint task force inspectors with the city attorney's office and the building department with 11 or 12 properties subsequent
4:57 pm
enforcement action on those properties during that prosecutes we had a zoning administrator hearing they challenged our determination and met with the property owners you know we've obviously expressed our fruition with the on and on violation they'll go through the process now to address those issues through the course we asked the property owner one of the questions i'd ask how many property they owned in the city they didn't answer the question and something 20 or thirty up to 40 didn't know how many properties the properties were not valuable but this is one of the properties there is active litigation of the city attorney's office has brought bins the property owner for those properties under enforcement this informs not one of the properties included in
4:58 pm
the litigation we're through the aware of any actions legal violations at this time but certainly there has been a pattern of buses abuse by the the subject property owner they're well aware of the concerns and the work will be only done as per the primary and not violating further the laws of city i'm available to answer any questions. >> could you give a couple of examples with non-compliance. >> in some cases they worked without any permitted and accident units to single-family homes and in some cases multi family homes and some were single-family homes they have permits down but a couple of more rooms created openings and multiply laundry rooms and it was true they were renting them
4:59 pm
out to veterans who were getting credits in the va so, i mean certainly those concerns you won't go into the details it is in little city attorney's office to pursue that litigation by sxooed the scope of the permits and creating multiple units without proper permits and cases with safety issues. >> the zoning code violation all yeah multiple units three and four units. >> given the history what makes you confident they'll not do the same thing. >> they're in the watchful eye of the city attorney's office and they're aware of the rules this case they applied for a permit and expect to them to do
5:00 pm
only permitted work. >> is the property they got a permitted and did the work within the permitted or has it also of always been they get the permitted and do extra stuff. >> certainly a dozen properties they did the work on the permitted and more so you know in terms of how they're not in violation they own others properties i think some properties we're not aware of some violations yes. >> thank you. >> i got a question so one how does that work with this new legislation of legal non-conforming units and two, how coordinate with your department mr. sanchez. >> they have been you know cooperative in working with us certainly the parties have the tenants of those units
5:01 pm
we are seeking this having them maximize the number of units into compliance they legalize in the current rules some cases they can legalize the units they're going to the process to do that under the codes for the unauthorized units if in pathway to legalization they're not sushth subject to the progress but you vice chair them maximize the number of units and have a way. >> thank you mr. duffy anything on this case. >> good work commissioners joe duffy dbi
5:02 pm
just under a dbi point of view the building permits is a common permits they issue a lot for the glr ground floor and a deck at the rear on the second level that was a permit is over-the-counter approval that went the police as you heard the planning department went through the building department plan check and mechanical plan check for the primary issued i reviewed did plans that were with the brief and to say it is a typical project adrc a bedroom and some other areas behind the garage i did not see anything unusual deal with 9 feet they're getting the light for the bedroom so the deck is absent bigger but smart using that i was going to i
5:03 pm
dhekd into that so the only thing that i had on it i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you okay any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> welcome. >> so i'm richard newman and live on the just a few minutes property and i actually went doesn't get notice of permitted i only found out about that a couple of days ago i know that judy was working on the property i met her a couple of years ago she started working on it and evacuation in the basement already i know it was abandon for a couple of about two years that's been talked about i want to comment on the trees i
5:04 pm
was surprised that all the trees were cut down one of the trees does go over my yard in some ways not a terrible thing that could have been trimmed in talking to me i was concerned by biggest concern is again what is going to happen in the property i'm concerned about the lawsuit when i spoke with ms. wu she began and assured me she and her family was moving in i guess her and her that would be great the assurance that the property will not be intbltd but i'm concerned as the next door neighbor and concerned i did not get notice i
5:05 pm
should have should have. >> next speaker, please. >> welcome again. >> thank you i have prepared a statement for this my name is janet and owned and resided on steel's avenue since may of 19978 i lived there with any family and two high school angled children i really value the close knit community i see a lot of my neighbors here he found and love living on steel's avenue the house think there was not abandon for years before the current owners bought it a sweet outlined woman lived there i often helped her carry her groceries when they died the
5:06 pm
house went up for sale that's not true about the time when the construction began think sfooels a few doors down i was excited to see what the new owners would do with the exact footprint of my house as the work went on the yard was trashd the entire backyard was with holes and the foundation was exposing dirt floors i saw that and also the workers left debris into the backyard and into the street i can confirm the presence of any rats because i have two fruit trees in any backyard and little fruit gets allege up by the rats only this past year not before here he actually took a picture of the house as i walked by it i don't know if you can see it
5:07 pm
this is sunday. >> i don't know - (inaudible) maya angelou h maui a large pile of debris on the street on the streets not we put our yard debris in the com possess bin i don't know why people think that is okay to pile garbage in the street a couple of years ago i didn't notice the postings i called the planning department to make sure twlfs a permit the city told me a replacement of windows and removal of dry rot i was fine with the work and a as defined
5:08 pm
up to code and after hearing the city lawsuit against the current owners and the work i believe much more indication is happening in the permitted that the city told me was there i ask the city to investigate the property and make sure that work is properly done to code please do this for the safety of our homes and the neighborhood thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal starting with the appellants. >> thank you, again, for listening to us i want to say it's been hard to keep up with what exactly is happening with the house because we've heard different things about what is happening at the beginning we heard that they will move on and they would not
5:09 pm
and our neighbors said that i was surprised that someone would come and work and taken the widows and doors out and leaving the house to rot i always kg my wife what is going on if i had money i'd use garbage bags to cover the windows to keep up the property so very concerning about our health also not only the privacy and is privacy i hear the owner that is saying we will suffer in terms of privacy but not been in our house right there we can basically to have a deck where you are and in our property being here we'll have someone in front of us this will not happen we
5:10 pm
potentially won't know the deck was there because trees were not cut someone who is where else to us and saying it is a concern again the neighbor how we're not good neighbors this is a really welcoming community i think that very welcomed community when we came to live there 10 years ago not about being unwelcomed but this is about the way that things are happening i don't really think this is because the owners don't know what the rules are in the city but they have an intention for this home that is not to live there and be neighbor. >> thank you. >> okay. we can take rebuttal from the permit holders.
5:11 pm
>> the talking about the rats there's was no food there. i don't know where it is the rat is caused by empty house also the window opens because we had a preempt tool replace the widow because of dry rotting and the trees was touching some of the widows and the leaks causing the siding rots and the permitted to do the windows first and later on we found more about a band of the building it looks reilly abandoned that's when i bought it it looks like nothing there the kitchen the kitchen was rotted along with the window so ages i don't know how people
5:12 pm
can live there and also regarding the ledge lawsuit alleged lawsuit nothing has nothing to do with with that particular house and those are the houses in the bayview district housing the african-american veterans homeless veterans is nothing to do with that one and we've benefit in good discussion with the neighbor about the replacements of the trees we have spent a lot of time doing it and actually watering that twice a week like a once a week every it grew up a little bit more now i want to get it over with we have no intention of renting out
5:13 pm
this house or it is a small house the one that you is involved in the rental the larger in the first place like a couple of 3 thousand square feet or 2 thousand square feet the larger house not has nothing to do with with this house i hope commissioner can consider as merit now the alleged allegations. >> have you planning to occupy the house. >> that will be my family's. >> my family's. >> you and your wife. >> my participants my parents yes. >> and mr. zoo can you addresses so the work has to started on the property someone from the public said they saw
5:14 pm
excavation being done. >> on the ground yes. the water seeped through we decided to make a return. >> so that's a returning walk. >> and was that permitted work. >> it is permitted. >> all right. thank you very much mr. sanchez anything further. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. just to add that the project does not require a section 311 notification. >> thank you for pointing that out out thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi i didn't mention we got a complaint in august 2017 on the abandoned building we wrote a notice of violation that is still anglo
5:15 pm
outstanding. >> what permits are on file right now mr. duffy. >> we have a 2014 for interior work and i see or didn't see anything on the retaining wall. >> we can look at that and didn't receive any other complaints on the property only the one by the abandoned building so if any neighbors wish there is anything happening now in the future all of us have the opportunities to contact department of building inspection and look at that for example, if it turns into 7 bedrooms and stuff like that. >> that didn't happen in san francisco does that. >> happened a lot. >> thank you
5:16 pm
excuse me - inspector duffy the same thing in a neighbor and the project sponsor that a permits was pulled for a response time and plumbing you have no record of that but if a neighbor is suspicious illegal activities related to construction on a retaining wall and other stuff is being done they can also file a complaint with you. >> please do we definitely time to hear about that evacuations is a danger in the city it causes the slope areas we've heard so we need to know evacuation and loop them on gov. and people can look it up we want to hear about it so send an inspector to look at that.
5:17 pm
>> thank you for your clarification. >> thank you. >> okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> it's okay. >> no, it's okay. >> it's okay sir, your speaking out of turn actually, if you look at the drawings it shows the foundation wall. >> okay. i'm jump in because i'm in a dilemma i suspect this permitted is issued by i have a difficult times supporting it because there seems to be a documented pattern of bad behavior and the original thing i can think have to continue the item on pending resolution with the city with the outstanding lawsuits and exclaims whatever it might be i understand the circumstances that allows anyone if necessary
5:18 pm
on the work is exceeded the primary that didn't have an impact on the past so that's a solution i'm proposing. >> i also have a dilemma we usually talk about the case before us not about the cases not before us i agree that there are past is an issue but that's one of the reasons he asked the departments on they're willingness and coordinations we can't say control when permits are issued but definitely a magnifying glass on the work they'll perform i'll cancer are consider your thoughts i have a hard time denying the permits. >> looks like if i can comment having a dilemma i find there -
5:19 pm
i think the permitted was not issued no error it was a correct permitted but at the same time it is very difficult to hear about a 2014 permitted and abandoned house and the track record of project sponsor and not have some dilemma and suspicion that's where - i think i'm leon towards commissioner lazarus but had this permitted been - the first permitted issued in 2014 had the work been done had the windows been finished and made some effort to be a good neighbor and retain some level of safety knowing there is water issues maybe than in my opinion
5:20 pm
would be less harsh but leon towards commissioner lazarus for that reason. >> i think i have a little bit of a different opinion four the following reason what is before us is a permit of a certain scope the arguments that were made in the briefs that came was primarily a privacy and visible impact issue i note that the appellants built a new deck but didn't put screening landscaper screening person depend on trees that were on adjacent properties to provide that so the question then is from that point then those ancillary issues we have no details we're hearing certain things about legal actions we're hearing things about previous history okay
5:21 pm
probably is a pattern but the question is my side that impact this particular building permit i don't see it impacting. >> so someone want to put forward a motion and see what sticks? >> i guess the other issue i'm assumed they've finished the work instead of allowing a little with lots of holes. >> we've having had many cases unfortunately, that owners and bad builders have done stuff do you want to see consistent blight condition for more years. >> in the past unfortunately, i agreed with even though the contractors did it wrong get it fixed for the benefit of the neighborhood and owe was leon
5:22 pm
towards commissioner lazarus recommendation and but that placing last commissioner kim about the blighted is troubling that is hard on the other hand, to award people for bad conduct not somewhat commissioner fung we're hearing things that is pretty sxhcht consistent that misconduct. >> i'm not disagreeing. >> what your view listening to and you know is if you risk punishing the neighborhood more because you don't allow the project to go forward on a legal permits on speculation of bad behavior and so i think maybe another point is that you let the building department and the
5:23 pm
city do their job but keep it from a mike scope. >> but the neighborhood wants to deny the primary. >> if it seems yield for two more years. >> i have a lack of faith they'll do what they say but i appreciate. >> i agree. >> yes. >> so we talk about trying to keep those matters under our approval i don't know if so interests a way to do this. >> this project under the mike scope of the departments and i see the head needing from the departments and building this permit holder he said his parents are moving in you're
5:24 pm
under oath i will not come back before us really i appreciate the mike scope i think the hammer was separate. >> okay. but. >> moniker to make a motion. >> i'm in the minority. >> i think your reasoning make sense the neighborhood blighting blight but many cases. >> it deny the appeal on the organize the permitted was issued appropriately. >> a tough call. >> a motion to deny the appeal and uphold on the boos it was appropriately issued
5:25 pm
commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson i reluctant i. >> that motion carries with the vote of 5 to zero thank you. >> we'll move on to item number 8 appeal peter versus the planning commission the property on 2000 bryant street the issuance on june 2015 to nick of the planning code large project authorization to allow the construction of a 6 story mixed use building with one and did 9 dwelling units up to 7 plus liv 12 thousand square feet of pdr for rear yard ground floor ceiling height for non-residential and horizontal mass reduction and the
5:26 pm
modification to the assessor use of planning code and start with the appellant. >> welcome. >> a lot less fanfare no orange shirts here. >> we're no less happy to be here. >> welcome please start. >> thank you so sfgov can i have the overhead please. >> you have to bring it back out. >> thank you. >> great, thank you. >> good evening, commissioners my name is peter i'm here representing the beauties on
5:27 pm
bryant and the uni united to save the bryant we have the commissioners are familiar with that we want to touch on a particular areas hone in on ways to adopt this large project authorization so this 2000 bryant is one of 50 projects to the mission and bringing cultural cumulative impacts we think this is real for the largest project into the mission and one of 4 in the immediate vicinity and a fifth in the planning phase ready across the street and the 2 across the street are quite large the bryant street project was granted an exemption instead of
5:28 pm
the environmental review it rested on the the underlying eastern neighborhoods planning eir as was excused from its others environmental studies the large project authorization is contingencies on a valid communities plan exemption evidences of this invalid was heard at the board of supervisors on september 13th as you referenced we believe the supervisors need the address nor are you feuded the bryant project didn't qualify for a c pe this board has the segregation to look at the consideration the potential cumulative impacts of bryant have the were not considered in the underlying eastern neighborhoods eir this level of housing development was not considered so you can see here the politician study option a we've looked in 9 underlying
5:29 pm
eir seven hundred plus and b-1 and 18 units, 1696 and option c the highest that was looked at we're not arguing for housing maybe shouldn't be but your speed limit to compare it on 2451 the housing option in the pr has been xeeptd and tiering off the openings didn't seen them valid as the missions along with the impacts before the planning department was incorrect the bryant street impacts have been analyzed in the underlying eir the eastern neighborhoods eir forecasts a range and statute the impacts those are the ab c
5:30 pm
and looked at it did mitigation level no such studies were done in the mission including the project on mission street therefore not valid for the cumulative be analyzed and disclosed in the nicaragua eir no way to evaluate them against the eastern neighborhoods eir because the cumulative impacts and the other 50 were not considered so here this is a conceptually what we're looking at the yellow portion that is what the considered options abc in the underlying froointd i bryant street are succumbing outside of the mitigation and impact consideration and therefore it not a correct conclude to say we know what the impacts and therefore out of line with the code to offer them
5:31 pm
on exemption the bryant street check list says the cumulative impacts must be considered when granting this appropriately oifblt or cumulative impacts not identified in the eastern neighborhoods pdr we don't know that we never studied those levels is that and the planning department brooints streets staff report confirmed we've exceeded the numbers in the mission eir this is from their own report on the project quote the nuke of units may exceeded by the pdr by approximately 3 hundreds and 50 units because evidence the cpe to find the lp a contingent on the cpe
5:32 pm
can't be granted we also think that multiple exceptions shouldn't have been in the design you cans a 6 story building and a narrow dark alley in between them we believe this will eventually have a dark hole not a representation we're getting we think this design needs to be reconsidered setbacks allowing loirlt are needed this is december 21st rendering by an architect afternoon and as you can see the shadows are considerable between the two buildings on the south side the affordable housing with an is the smaller one that is not been designed in fact, one of the concerns and the larger one six stories is the market-rate and alley setbacks in the eastern neighborhoods are
5:33 pm
required this is the umu zoning for 20 and thirty feet in width a setback of not less than 10 feet setbacks are required this project was sold to the planning department's as one and 96 market-rate housing and up to affordable units the affordable sites it to be designed we believe more affordable units will be lost their setbacks are to alleviate this we ask you to uphold the appeal on that bryant street thank you. >> thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> attorney mr. betel. >> welcome.
5:34 pm
>> hi steve martel excuse me on behalf of the project sponsor this is our second hearing yesterday the board of supervisors. >> i'm sorry can estop times. >> i'm sorry i need to make a disclosure. i wish to disclose i've hired reuben, julius & rose on a iron and martel none of which will impact or render a decision in that case. >> thank you for your interruption. >> the second hearing yesterday the board of supervisors on 11 zero votes rejected the appeal of the exemption the boards uphold the conditional use with the authorization of the between with replacement that was an unanimous 11 zero veto this is code compliant it meets the umu
5:35 pm
and 68 height units of the large project authorization is just as the market-rate building not of the future affordable building the project is not seeking concessions and has a 42 percent - a total of one and 91 market-rate housing and 19 thousand square feet of pdrs and now no replacements of pdr is required a terrific example how the mayor's office and other departments work with the pdrs we're disappointed that the appellant disagrees the 19 thousand square feet of lands equivalent to 46 percent and one and 91 market-rate housing and bmr units on the market-rate side and four ceqa cleaners for the affordable on the dedicated lands and delivery of that lands
5:36 pm
to moe in a shefldz condition and identified the financing in the near future and he reaches 19 square feet of pdr and nearly 3/4ths pursuant to article of the administrative code the ceqa documents and cpes are heard by the board of supervisors not the board of appeals the gentleman appealed with the board of supervisors and therefore that upheld the adequacy of the cpe on an unanimous vote yesterday and the planning department 10 members were there defending where a skrep is appropriate for this case they're not here this appeal has been resolved and that ceqa appeal dealt with the
5:37 pm
appeal planning code section authorized the mrabsz to grant large project authorization the projects for the proposed used are principally permitted section 29 authorizes the commission to grants exemption in approving the lp a to meet the standards of code including height, storefront mix and radio and bike share and inclusionary housing lands dedication for the site yielding 40 percent is expressly permitted by the planning code to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements and land dedication is encouraged by the planning commission they adapted earliest this year the motion states how the design meets the
5:38 pm
criteria of section 29 and the motion to explain why the xrpgs were minor authorized by the planning codes and minded approval the gentleman brought up the mid block alley between the affordable and the market-rate housing building is no a motion and a second alley so it is not required and the mid block all over the place are no applicable not a motion and a second alley the mid block alley standards do apply and on a exemption for the mid block alley provisions i'll skip over a few things
5:39 pm
the gentleman followed up with a land designation before it is fully designed and has the skunking wrong the lands moe didn't issue a rfp for nonprofits are developers to complete the construction of the affordable units until after the required land that requires a lp a and prior to the approval of an lp a what is required the first-degree murder land as ceqa clearance and a potential for a minimum number of units moe maids that detector as evidenced by the letter with sxbt c in the where we live not required and could not have been been required sirens t since the lan because the moe building was not filed new orleans the moe building will be and can
5:40 pm
construct the amount of work in a courtyard and roof deck i again point out that the go planning code expressly authorizes the planning commission to grants the 5 exemption that we've sought those 5 expectations 11 teaches exemption in 29 d including rear yard and mass reduction and stereotyping loading and min deviations were included obscuring this is code compliant and consistent with the mission plan that was created after 10 years of study the project meets all the standards and goes i don't understand the package
5:41 pm
as the mix plan has the construction of affordable housing this is no lack of lands the launders designation directly addresses that with no cost to the city for those reasons we ask you deny the appeal as the board of supervisors the last night thank you. >> mr. betel our brief consistently renewables one and 94 units the planning documents say one 99 what is the number you're going in important one 94. >> we went to the planning commission at the 199 the planning commission in it's hearing 5 ground floor unions and the commission required the amount of pdr space be subsidizing there's we lost
5:42 pm
those 5 ground floor unions and replaced to please state your name space we're down to one and 94 unions. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning department. not too much to add the project on adjoin second of this year in addition to the section 29 the large project authorization in eastern neighborhoods which is before you think appeal also a conditional use authorization the conditional use authorization and is environmental review which was cpe were appealed to the board of supervisors the board of supervisors heard those stems yesterday and amazing denies the appeals for the conditional use authorization the conditional use authorization dealt with the removal of denial on the the subject property and the result
5:43 pm
of removal of 3 illegal dwelling units as part of in addition satisfactory the bmr by doing the land designation i'll note satisfies greater than what the code requires safeties the code requirements in effect prior to the recent codes kansas and also satisfies the new requirements that are in place. >> and in addition 3 bmr unions on site that replaces the 3 unions that are lost as part of that project so as part of the section 29 authorization 5 exceptions so you get we've added a couple of 29 appeals with the process the exemption for rear yard and ground floor ceiling height and mass production and up to flexible units as part of
5:44 pm
project they're providing a greater amount of open space and rather than providing a cook current rear yard it is a large development sites that occupies a good portion of the subject property block and providing open space that is beneficial to the city there is a requirement for the mid block alley as mr. betel statistics that applies to blocks that have learn longer for 4 hundred feet this is not longer than 4 hundred feet they're providing that mid block alley that passes through as an amenity to the project but not required under the planning code to do so they're seeking a - the mass production of breaking
5:45 pm
requirements so have the moved and seconded alley been wider 5 feet wider that would have addressed that thirty foot break but otherwise those are fairly typical modifications we see for project tloorgsz those are most of issues raised by the appellant relate to the review heard by the board of supervisors yesterday the body that hears the appeals for the determinations and again denied unanimously the appeal on the environmental review with that, i'm available to answer any questions i have a question so when does there project enter the planning department how long has this process going on. >> is 2013 or 2014 the case is 2013 so made their initial
5:46 pm
application in 2013. >> is that standard for a project this size it seems quickly. >> parts of it is the cycle i'll say 3 years is a good length of times. >> it is a twist on market-rate. >> i was wondering the standards size for 3 years seems pretty quick to me for a project that size. >> i mean you know certainly i understand sometimes, people think that the larger projects move introduce the process a little bit quicker and more than one hearing at the planning commission does add a substantial flub of dwelling units and does permitted. a number of affordable housing
5:47 pm
as well >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> on the subject of affordable housing counsel not that i don't believe keenly but want to hear from you somebody from the mayor's office of housing but the whole cart before the horse therapy can you elaborate for the public as well as myself it might seem odd no design for the low income housing maybe appear that the low income hoosiers will not be built or different from promised we have nothing to show for that that's concern of paranoia at the same time standards operating procure and happens all the time can you
5:48 pm
give us some confront around that. >> yes. we've had a few dedicated office lands use they have to be able to satisfy the affordability requirement outlined by the lands that is dedicated we rely on the mayor's office of housing and community development mohcd to review what is being proposed and designated to the city we'll be responsible and mohcd will be responsible for developing that property and the ask for mohcd to make a determination that required a number of affordable units can be developed on the dedicated lands they've done that they find the required greater than the required number can be develops on the the truth and mohcd staff was at the board of supervisors yesterday's and testified to that as well. >> and he can see you know based on any experience been on
5:49 pm
the redevelopments agency and is mayor's office of housing and community development going gone through and many examples of senior housing or low income housing there is a process not in the developing business they don't build it they do on rfp and then there's a design so i've been there before but will you affirm that is the deal will potentially not inappropriate by in the the scheme of things for the mayor's office of housing to design something they've not put out for an rfp. >> no prestige go whether no developer so i understand they do thinks the developments requirements their got standards for promotions they funds so they reviewed this and found they can evaporate a flub of unions on this location.
5:50 pm
>> thank you for answering that and clarifying. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> is planning department staff that handles the analysis. >> here. >> inform. >> are you going to be the only speaker. >> i'm the only speaker and let me ask the foley have the 5 exemptions the planning commission motion talks about it but not talking about it deeper we have nothing in the package that relates to staffs analysis as an example the vast reduction all it says is it needed exceptions inform execution as to what staff was going though
5:51 pm
how do you accept that has an exception it could require a break horizon break of thirty feet wide and the building the little will not to be separated in half not an alley through that but were a break thirty feet wide and 60 feet deep and at least begins no less than 25 feet below o above grade. >> the code what would have required if i can have the octavia boulevard the notch they're providing a alley three feeding feet wide they felt was
5:52 pm
artificial better for the city and provided assess not a one hundred foot's block but a decent size block with access through that's the analysis we were getting rather than a small notch was going to be overall a better trade off. >> how about one loading space instead of two. >> so their proechs 2 on street loading plaza and one on-street parking within florida street they're providing and
5:53 pm
reasonable loading but just not two full sized loading spaces they're doing the on street which is not generally an occasion to be preferable within the building envelope. >> is that a planning department direction. >> prefer it on the street versus. >> depends on the context and what the alternative is and in this case you know unfortunately i don't have much beyond what is in the motion that the project sponsors they're involved in some of the discussions with staff but so they're providing we're finding their meeting the demands that would be puts on the project and doing it in angle alternative methods with the section 329 not a criteria.
5:54 pm
>> but in others there are not. >> but sometimes, we get the project report from staff. >> yeah. this should be the full analysis should be in our packages as part of 329 documents which is the appealable document had should be in your packets. >> i don't see that which is why may question normally that provides us with a background. >> that's the document that is appealed and submitted by the appellants. >> little motion is here and that's what they have. >> most of analysis is in the motion i mean, now how we do it an executive summer but were the
5:55 pm
kwublg is in the the decision and rationale behind it before rebuttal look and see if i can find additional finding on this. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> so take public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak for this item. >> okay. all right. first person please step forward and begin. >> please come forward if you like to speak. >> if you haven't filled out a speaker please when you're done that would be helpful. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm here to support the appeal interesting what you've mentioned earlier about the issues related to the lack of a development agreement that was
5:56 pm
something that came out yesterday's at the hearing i'm just going to read my notes to make it easy no developer compels the characters for the building plan is vertebral since no plan at this point and there could possibly be a development we think and also no time certain about when the affordable units will be built as they've not been built and no real prestige yet and we feel this is a problem and we feel there is some possibility to create some kind of development being accepted so thank you. >> thank you. >> >> and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. mrir miami wise. >> thank you.
5:57 pm
>> good evening. i'm alison i'm here to speak in support of the lp a appeal without a rendered skyline for the affordable housing no justification for the approval i share the communities concern no guarantee regarding the number of affordable units on site secondly, the mid block alley is nothing more than a narrow 25 passage and not quality as open space the two buildings on either side appear to have no setbacks this is a violation of section 270.2 and others which required the nuke mid block passages to have a setback of not less than 10 feet forcing those reasons this appeal should
5:58 pm
be upheld thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm rec hall i believe this appeal should be upheld with regards to the ceqa issues while you may not since you have whole jurisdiction your decision think is lp a is based on should be based on on the judgment associated was that question answers accurately yesterday secondly, the design of this project and the state of design when it was approved just feels
5:59 pm
like that was all over the place i guess my biggest concerns right now is envisioning this thing that has been state to be a motion and a second alley all through the process and now we found out today oh, noting no, not a motion and a second alley only a amuse in any case it is this 25 foot thing with a loading dock on one ended that going the one the two buildings one will be 8 stories tall and other one six stories and as far as no sunlights with light and air this is not going to be a beautiful workable amuse it us used as open space it feels to me like this dark hole is going to be a hazard with
6:00 pm
walls think either side and all the way up a terrible design and should be reconsidered before this project is allowed to go forward. >> thank you. any other speakers. >> hi good afternoon. i'm magic and i followed this since it's inception i was part before this happened it is important that government bodies look at how they can serve the people and therefore interpret the law to serve the highest good the mission is under siege so in the mr. betel and mr. sanchez didn't
6:01 pm
address the cumulative effect that's the key part of ceqa and so many developments in the per diem right now that has to be looked you have an opportunity to really shack things up the government is not a domino effect because the planning commission and the board did this didn't mean that is a right thing to do in the next step you can use your intelligence to see this is wrong i present what mr. swig said about affordable housing in guarantees no legal fight to make them build affordable housing things can change not enough money all that can happen and have to pay $18 million if they especially\is they'll allow affordable housing i don't think moan in the building is going to want homeless that deserve to be
6:02 pm
treated well 20 percent given to them i think everything will be turn to block the affordable housing it is important i hear the gentleman say if you have the materials sit down and discuss it and see what is happening we're in a critical time in the country and the city to provide homes for people that actually the and grew up here that's the intention of neighborhoods plan to keep aspects of this area to have work and production and manufacturer and the arts supported and maintained nothing in the project that did that nothing it is important i'm grateful to peter's for bringing forth this appeal eir only last 5 years i want to ask how to
6:03 pm
getting into the weeds of the eastern neighborhoods plan how to get rid of not serve the neighborhoods you have do something unique on the board of appeals you have the power we'd appreciate it. >> thank you. >> any other speakers. >> please step forward. >> my name is tony rob less commissioners i'm a staff how are you advocate for senior and disability action the concern and i'll echo what other people said on the affordable housing issue you know the lack of guarantees i mean we've seen the lack of affordable housing we've seen market-rate housing that is prioritized and seen how this is had a tremendous impact an working people and artists i'm
6:04 pm
concerned about the cultural and the artistic integrity of the mission i will urge you to support this appeal so we can really look at the cumulative impact this huge project would have again, i am a housing advocate lived in san francisco all my life and there's a lot of short sided thinking by various departments and the neighborhoods have suffered and people oftentimes are not pressure it's so you have the opportunity to help the peep in the mission. >> any other comment step
6:05 pm
forwa forward. >> i'm born and raised in the mission district and commissioners combo our office they're afraid they'll be they know they'll either going to be evicted or displaced especially the elderly the disabled and long-term attendance they're targeted and forced out of their apartments and the landlords are finding loopholes to evict the tenants and where do you expect those tenants to go to apply for luxury apartments like 24 development on bryant we're in a housing crisis not needing nor
6:06 pm
market-rate and can't afford to build no more market-rate we need your cultural spaces and local businesses our right to stay in san francisco as a native from the mission i see how the mission has schangdz please don't change our mission don't allow this to stop on our home and community please help us preserve the mission has or historical value what is the mission we need 100 percent affordable housing this development not good for the mission please support this appeal thank you. >> any other public comment. >> okay. >> hi i've been working with my
6:07 pm
colleagues on the beast on bryant and hoping we can appeal we're not able to get one-on-one pdr we'll have over 40 meetings to discuss whether do you want them to build and land dedication we've agreed on land dedication and working with the mayor's office of housing and don't necessarily know when the units will go up we're not going to wait 8 years what is promised two to three years is this should have been built yesterday no guarantees and the specs don't know what they look like and not able to be one hundred units are people trapped in a little box i don't know if it will mesh well, that the neighborhoods we were having a lot of problems in the mission
6:08 pm
especially around police brutality people take into account people that are from that area and targeting the people and alex and others previously housed was on the street and someone said there was people out there with a knife i'm speaking to the bigger problem like we don't know what the eir if it especially is valid if it ever go has changed i'm concerned lived here seven years and everything is change in the last two years more people on the street, more - we don't have the infrastructure for those 2000 units como into the mission if you remember the tents city people on the streets do have a bathroom and where they go in the streets that's a real problem i'm trying to help
6:09 pm
you understand that we don't want what happened in the eastern neighborhoods in 89 fillmore that was the complete eastern neighborhoods completely demolished nothing under recent a beautiful mural in the ailing that says the manila stands with the solidarity we need to pull this down and so we can start with the protection with the inner sunset and the engel side they're vulnerable we feed to protect the people here and built this city not people that can buy important anything live anywhere we owe to the people that live in the communities here and our culture is not for sale in the mission you candles white quash it to make it for the newcomers thank you. >> thank you. >> someone has a question for you. >> any other public comment.
6:10 pm
>> okay. seeing none we will have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> so commissioners i want to talk about a few key elements the first thing i think what we are asking from you and others at this point to see you're taking on the role of making sure we have and in this case where it will not be clear i want to ask you to make the projects more safe we are in a critical time displacement is out of control we have 50 projects coming in and have impacts to think you're using.
6:11 pm
>> judgment to narrows projects are safe, i think there is critical issues here we hope you're going to find the same concerns and look into how they can be resolved i want to talk specifically about the mid block alley first of all, not 0 mid block alley can i have the overhead sfgov. >> this is the developers own design clearly labldz this is the whole time the moved and seconded alley so that's where we got the idea we're looking at a motion and a second alley so the code can i stay with the overhead seems to be clear a little small i'll try reading it to you >> plausible this is think
6:12 pm
parcels one or more section over 200 linear feet for 4 hundreds feet i'll skip ahead to mixed use we go below for umu construction with footage greater than 200 less thanier feet a mid block alley for the entire depth of the property and those criteria a number of met over the central block half the block face, etc. and code 270.2. >> i want to say that i think that when you look at why are those concerns we on the code clearly says that setbacks will be required this was sold on the affordable housing along with the amount with the city and larger funds making up the rest
6:13 pm
but it is getting often multiply from 200 and thirty feet to 25 feet so we don't know really current this is not designed where will we end up with the design is finished and this code needs to be followed thank you. >> i so a question. >> i have a question. >> you said to make that save before people represented the mission and other neighborhoods and yet the vote was a unanimous 11 zero? >> uh-huh. >> illness sure what my question is but why do you think
6:14 pm
someone's arguments were not sequencing to the board of supervisors and i started saying first of all, that was disappointing the central argument that's why i brought it to you was not addressed there was no discussion there was a lot of confusion a month ago when the core van appeal went under the board of appeals the planning department argdz those ceqa issues need to come stew a lot of sxhufgs last time they again argue that but none addressed our critique question don't know their mitigations and thereafter a mitigation is not - that's right the central complaint, in fact, that question spent all of our time and resources on that's within element and other similar things
6:15 pm
in terms of i don't think that in the conditional use appeal they hone hoendz on the issues of mid block alley we are taking those things to make a ruling and asking you to consider them especially in those areas we are a little bit unsure will who is territory it is. >> thank you. >> it seems the city mienlt unsure well. >> mr. betel. >> okay. >> thank you, steve betel again, the mayor's office of housing provided a letter to the board of supervisors yesterday and appeared and hearing to make the following pledges they'll issue an rfp within 4 weeks with a 6 month response to - to have
6:16 pm
a team working with the community on the design to build within the next year or so a year and a half to two years they've identified the full funding for the $30 million for concluding in hue fees and low income housing been both of which are non-competitive and the rfp to build that project one and 36 units of low income housing 20 percent of which will be formally homeless families and the remainders up to a 50 percent middle-income and now refrldz are not permanently affordable and the replacements the replacements is one and 367 moe units plus 3 additional bmr
6:17 pm
units one and 39 affordable units in the mission within the next two years. >> there which is a big reason the board of supervisors was comfortable the affordable housing is funded and modus operandi a capture of other issues peter's read the provision of the planning code about mid block alleys there as they said apply on mid block of greater than 4 hundred feet and mr. sanchez confirmed the mid block alley is not needed because the block is not more than 4 hundred feet wide and the planning commission didn't grants exemption not needing to they're not applicable the reason the commission is xofblt with 1 of
6:18 pm
street loading space the loading demands for the building is within space no reason to have 2 off street spaces taking up ground floor space when the demands is only for one space. >> and then finally there was extensive decision at the board of appeals on the issue of cumulative impacts under the eastern neighborhoods eir remains valid as a program documents that tier off eirs this was potentially 80 percent of the discussion amongst the board members and the staff that was an issue that was fully vetted by the board of supervisors yesterday. >> thank you, mr. betel i have a question you mentioned earlier the rfp will be ordinances in 4 weeks is it 4 weeks or 4 months. >> 4 quitclaims sew is there a guarantee and whatever from the
6:19 pm
mayor's office of housing to supervisor campos. >> mr. betel you remember the vesting. >> we have rules now. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department really nothing further to add confirming the moved and seconded alley is not required for the subject property they're providing a quote/unquote i moved and seconded alley not subject to the setback wrirments that is not a required moved and seconded alley and just in regards to the on streets loading spaces the staff is looking at perhaps more favor ably noting spaced can be provided for drop off and, etc.
6:20 pm
but this was one of the notes i have from staff thank you. >> okay questions. >> go ahead. >> i keep on hearing about cumulative effect can you explain that a little bit. >> i mean, that's the analysis under ceqa whether or not all the projects that could be authorized in the rezoning efforts of rezoning can have a cumulative that requires additional analysis under ceqa go is if the mitigation measures needs tobacco adopt but the board of supervisors upheld the he determination that this was a cumulative plan expectation. >> thank you. >> so for me, the attractive
6:21 pm
flood insurance i don't have a problem with the toxicness of overall project the benefit is one and 36g units the city desperately desperately needs is there a chance that somebody would with all the commitment into the mayor's office of housing with a commitment for the developer or is jurisdiction or is legislation without that we'll abusive they have to dedicate the lands is there a chance that someone will step up and we're not set around here hearing an appeal against the hundred and 36 unions of affordable housing what's that
6:22 pm
surest for me this is the scary piece not the building but the i would hate to see us approve a building based on the real needs one and 36 unions of housing and then have the nightmare of hearing an appeal on approval of a permit to build housing what's the odds as we sit here with the letter from moe and all, all that stand-off stuff. >> certainly an appeal something could be brought back at sometime in the future with the light 100 percent legislation that tried to produce or minimize the process so a conditional use
6:23 pm
authorization is no longer required so the process is expedited but ultimately an appeal process this board is the ultimate board in the city for appeals. >> stop flaefrt us. >> it's try so is it possible an appeal could come brown-bag this board with that said, this is not different in a place to satisfy the bmr requirements through an offsite requirement so they stick to develop their affordable units this project could be delayed or anyone pays the in lui fees to mohcd and there's a times for allocating that money and developing the project you know the question certainly so the city is fully think board with developing this as affordable units as possible
6:24 pm
up to one and 36 units covers the maximum unifying the density bonus program this is in far competence of thirty feet we're doing the lands dedication to a commitment to doing this and that was sclaerl expressed yesterday to the board of supervisors. >> can you interrupt. >> so i guess a quick question so should any concern factor of that which i expressed should it be low, medium or high with an issue what the low income housing piece. >> is it generally 100 percent housing projects more windshield wipers into communities i mean, we generally find less appealed not to say this is not or could not be we've seen that happen as
6:25 pm
well but i'm concerned said the chances are diminished but i can go to las vegas withs odds. >> that operators took the lands designation and the property is deetsdz as affordable housing and if the rfp will happen within 4 weeks then we assumed the building will be 3 years i know at that point complung commissioner fung and myself will be here in 4 years. >> for yourselves. >> (laughter). >> if that comes before us maybe we'll all be here. >> contractors will be here in 2020 at issues will still if you build an 8 story building on the
6:26 pm
other side of property is if property owner going to be happy with that. >> i guess i'll say if you don't never mind. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so xhmdz i'd like to take the opportunities to remind you of 3 things the standard of review for the piece even if discretion you need 3 votes to owner turn the motion and 3 if you decide to uphold the motion you'll need to adopt the ceqa finding. >> i can start i did ask questions although having seen those skies and ongoing mr. sanchez directions how they address and utilizes the tools to i, probably guess what they wrote
6:27 pm
which when he raises the question really as trying to establish in my own mind how for those exceptions the nature of the appeal before us versus the nature of the overall project i potentially would have on a personal note discharged with a couple of the exceptions and there's no need to dlaeblt on that has an example i think we see too much impacts on traffic because there is insufficient loading i don't know why they center a loading code they give exceptions to that is a small example i think the bigger issue whether i feel that the objections to the lack of a mass reduction and
6:28 pm
this basically a mid-rise industrial aesthetic is important enough versus when he feel the project is doing not necessarily in terms of the design and then the composition of the market-rate housing but in terms of whether the concept of having a separate affordable housing site is of vast importance and i'm feeling that that really weighs on my decision. >> i'll say that i concur if there ever sufficient reason to turn it down that would be that but if we do turn it down there will not be affordable housing that's not an issue and some of the conversation to the one earlier the concerns that the
6:29 pm
permit holders will do what they said and have no control over that one or this one and if that happens to cock it is coming back so on the basis of project i'm certainly inclined to deny the appeal and uphold the large project authorization and the environmental finding. >> i also will concur with any fellow commissioners that is unique how 24 particular developer choose to use the land dedication for this project and that the large are market-rate unions are prioritized but as my fellow commissioner christensen said we can honor the affordable
6:30 pm
unit project and if not we'll deal with that at that time. >> so the 5 expectations don't bother me in granting the 5 exceptions obviously since i asked about it device my greatest concern is low income housing my experience with being on the late redevelopment agency gives me faith in the mayor's office of housing when they write letters as they did yesterday and the supervisors and we know the quality of housing built in the city low income housing on similar sites and we certainly need it i will certainly supports commissioner
6:31 pm
lazarus direction to deny the appeal but i would like to make a comment to the da that in the future where and maybe enappropriate to you but in general you're the on one here in the future where such a key element as low income housing where low income housing is a key elements of a project and really a driver here and makes it is important would really love to have someone in the mayor's office of housing attendss meetings and invade data to we could a don't have to hear hearsay and from council that would be bias and the burden didn't fall entirely on
6:32 pm
one member i request the agency to show up when there is a problem here. >> moniker to make a motion. >> i'll move to deny the appeal uphold the large project authorization on is basis that the commission neither errored nor it's discretion and approve the draft. >> if the gentleman can puts that on the overhead commissioner lazarus because of the action of board of supervisors would be gay to add one clause to that drafts on the overhead at the end of the firdz par graph but the decision
6:33 pm
affirming the version incorporate all the decisions. >> that's what you're thinking; right? >> absolutely. >> so the motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the decision that the planning commission didn't error and with the adoption provided with the hearing as amended commissioner fung commissioner honda. >> commissioner wilson. >> commissioner swig. >> that motion carries with a vets of 4 to zero there's no further business before the board this evening. >> i'm going to celebrate. >> we're done thank you, test
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
>> we'll call the shortened special meeting of the transbay joint powers authority for thursday, august 25, 2016, will you call the roll madam secretary. >> and note for the shortened record supervisor kim is having a scheduling conflict. >> director reiskin and director nuru and director harper is we have quorum. >> thank you. >> next item. >> >> 3 public comment for members of the public e members to address you own not on today's calendar and no speakers. >>


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on