tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 5, 2019 5:00am-6:01am PDT
my husband already provided some photographs of my building, whatever you decide to do, we cannot do anything. >> thank you. >> project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. thank you for allowing me to speak. i just want to say, me and my fiancé, we are private citizens, we are not developers. we have day jobs, we go to them every day. we have a big mortgage. i have been with this project since tran11, it took me a few years to get the lot, and a few years to get here before you. during that time i've never hit -- hid my intent to which is to build property on the subdivided event.
i have aging parents, my dad is 75, my mom is 74. we want to raise a family with my fiancé. i just feel like, throughout this process, i very much like peter and mara, by the way. they are great people. i've tried to extend and accommodate as much as i humanly could, foz will not timeframe. as leslie pointed out, i just want to be clear, i specifically chose to record that easement on their side in order to preserve as much light as possible and as much distance as possible. i completely relate to the fact that, you know, they have enjoyed the view for a long time of this empty place, in a lot. i get that. it had been fortunate it had been empty and vacant for so long. i would really love to build
this modest single-family home .-dot to in our view fits perfectly within the powdered of this neighborhood -- -- pattern of this neighborhood. we are going to stay in san francisco, we are going to raise a family. we both work here, my fiancé and i do. we are hopefully going to bring my parents and even her folks to live in the existing house and create more housing for elderly folks, as well. thank you. >> okay. commissioner richards. >> i think this is a sensitive project. i like the fact he recorded the easement. you seem like an overall good guy. i was ready to make a motion to not take dr unless i am i am convinced. >> i share the same opinion as
you. i work a little bit always at the first block of fillmore. this is a small street, large alleyway. all of the lots are small. all of the houses are originally built because of the size of the lots. also, i agree, the developers being more than gracious by literally placing the easement, and sharing it with a neighbor. i am in support. >> a couple of questions for staff. do you know whether the dr was filed based on the original scheme, they -- rather than the revised scheme? >> i think -- >> there is a big difference. >> right. yeah, i would defer to the project sponsor on that. >> though dr was taken on the site permit plans.
we have revised it based on discussions with our team. based on that that is the plans that you have before you. >> has a revised set been provided to the dr requester? >> yeah, it has been provided. >> okay, ma'am. it is provided as part of the packet which is uploaded to the website and is public information. >> second. >> ma'am, you are out of order. until they are asked a question. >> i assume all of those lots have been subdivided, and required a variance?
>> um. yes, looking out the parcel map there are um, it is the nature of the block to have smaller lot development. >> the property line between the subdivided lots do not match up, is not also correct? >> well, that was -- the subject property was a subject of effort previous variance granted by the zoning administrator. >> i understand that, i'm saying that subdivision compared to the one next to it, that the rear property lines do not line up, is that correct? >> they do not. that is correct. they do not line up. i do not have the previous variance in front of me. i am not sure. >> okay. >> ms. arnold, i am in support
of the project. i think it is a sensitive project. the only thing i would like to ask is that since this particular small block does not have any roof decks, that is your roof deck setback properly once there is a roof area on the other part of the roof, on roof as part of the submittal? do you see that? >> there is a little outline, i'm only taking a third of the area. >> i know that. what i would like to see is a drawing that shows the area surrounding the roof deck as being an unoccupied roof. we have seen, unfortunately in building things, i would like to have that recorded as the roof area that we are proving today. i would like to state again that
the street itself does not have roof decks. we are basically adding something, which i believe is appropriate yet i would like that to be modified in a manner that there's an open floor plan. >> any other questions? >> no, that is all. >> one quick question, what commissioner more is indicating, would it fit our new roof deck policy? i moved to take 2018-009355drp and establish -- -- dr and approve the project. as revised. >> i think it's an overstatement commissioner richards to say we have a roof deck policy. the commission has consistently pushed for criteria which are being expressed on this particular roof design. we are working on a roof policy,
that is hopefully reflecting what we are saying here. in the spirit of what we, all as a group have to talk about. >> in accordance to the roof deck policy which we have not yet approved. >> that is in flux, i would suggest that condition to what commissioner moore said, the unoccupied area of the roof be noted in the drawing. >> and it reflects the past not doing three years. >> you are okay with the placement of the roof deck? you just want to make sure that the other portion of the roof is clearly designated or delineated as non- occupied? >> correct. >> okay. i will take dr. approve the project as is to make sure that the portion of the roof that doesn't have a roof deck is clearly delineated
that it is not to be occupied. >> very good. >> if there is nothing further there is a motion to be seconded to take dr and approve the project as has been revised. noting on the plans that the area of the roof deck -- the area of the roof that is unoccupied. on that motion. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously six like a zero. items 19 and 20 through the chair will be called up together , as they are adjacent to one another and part of the same development proposal. case numbers 2017-000987drp-02 -- excuse me, folks. 2017-000987drp-04, 25 17th
avenue and 27 17th avenue -. these are discretionary reviews. each dr applicant will get a five minute presentation and the project sponsor will get a ten minute presentation. >> good afternoon. david winslow planning staff department architect. the item before you are requests for discretionary review. to a building applications. the first to construct a rear horizontal addition at levels 1-3 at a horizontal front addition of the fourth a story of an existing single-family dwelling. the proposal also includes legalization of previous demolition, three-story bay production, deck and chimney on the south façade performed with all benefit of a permit at 25 17th avenue. there are two dr requester's.
the first jerry dressler of 40, 17th avenue, neighbor to the east of the proposed project is concerned with four primary issues. first, the work was performed without the benefit of a permit. including the removal of a three-story bay extending over a lot line. number two, the size and massing of the proposed building is not compatible with the height and scale of the existing nearby buildings. three, abating the violation of removing the bay should not be allowed due to the historical heritage of the building. the lot splits would be contingent upon the removal of building features that straddle the new subdivided lot lines, unless the approval was not considered in the lot line split. due to inaccuracies of the plan provided by the project sponsor. a number four, the proposed project is not in form to the residential guidelines specifically designed the scale of the buildings to be
compatible with the height and depth of surrounding buildings. and to articulate the building to minimize impacts on privacy on adjacent properties. specifically the proposed deck at the front and rear of the fourth of story are excessive and intrusive to privacy. the second dr requester, alan, the neighbor to the rear and west of the proposed project is concerned with the following issues. similarly, one, work was performed without the benefit of a permit. including the removal of the bay over the side lot line and the project does not conform to the same residential design guidelines related to scale, privacy and light. >> the department has received ten letters in opposition and no letters in support. the department to review recommendation, because of the work that was performed without the benefit of a permit, we had some abatement. the permitted scope of work for bpa, number 2016 -- oh one oh
6349. to replace the existing foundation with a new mass foundation and bpa to demolish all plaster, remove dry rot into rotted across entire southwall. stucco repair in kind. following a site visit by planning staff on august 205th , 2016. -- august 25, 2016. due to further pending work for the project, currently before the commission, staff require the project sponsor to complete a historic resource evaluation to determine whether the building was historically significant. prior to reviewing the permits to legalize the unpermitted
work, the building was reclassified as a category c, no historic resource. on march 20, 2017, that happen on march 20, 2017, on may 18, 2017 a permit was filed to abate the violation, and legalize the removal of the site deck as well as address interior work at the site lodge level. that is under bpa which was issued on august 1, 2017 and appealed on august 2, 2019. they appeal was granted by the board of appeals on september 13, 2017. the board required that the scope of work related to the abatement of the tbi and planning violations be removed from the permit under the appeal and incorporated into the larger project currently before the commission. to date the project sponsor has paid all fees related to the enforcement phase and has provided timely responses to all
staff requirements and requests. therefore no penalties have accrued. the permit currently before the commission would not only allow for the proposed addition 25 17th avenue in new construction at 27 17th avenue -, but also abate the violation to the end -- [inaudible] the departments preservation staff enforcement team, and residential design advisory team review of the project found that the legality of the two separate lots had been complete -- determined by san francisco public works. they have two legally complying lots. senior packet the attached letter from the director of public works and the city and county lansurveyor. while removal of portions of the building straddling the lot line without the benefit of a permit is an appropriate, staff preservation determined that this building, all the work of up prominent local architect is
not significant nor eligible. as an individual or part of a historic district. furthermore at the side bay was not original to the house. a subsequent addition from around 1919-1938. you can see that determination and your pocket. the existing building retains the features of its front façade except for modest addition of the fourth story which is set from the front and maintained continuity with the maintain character. the rear additions to the 1-3 floors extend no further than the adjacent building to the north and step back as they ascend with the third story incorporating a 5-foot site setback against the property, to the south. not to create a building mass that is out of scale or blocks access to open space. number five, the department found that the amount, size and location of the decks are generally consistent with the departments criteria minimizing
potential nuisance to neighboring properties and they are setback from open space. with the one exception of the front deck it is adjacent to a window of a neighbor to the north. therefore staff recommends the front deck be set back 5 feet from all building edges and that the reared deck should also incorporate solid guardrails. this concludes my presentation on 25 17th avenue. the second pair of initiate a public request for discretionary review are building permit application 201806252842. to demolish a garage structure occupying a portion of the rear yard and construct a new four story single family 27 17th avenue -. this is a lot that is immediately south of 25 17th avenue. the first dr requester, number 20, 18th avenue is concerned with the following issues. the work was performed without the benefit of a permit, including the removal of a three-story bay extending over
the side lot line has created a need heightened review along with moderate monitoring to ensure the project is completed in accordance with the code. that project is not conform to several residential design guidelines namely buildings that need to be compatible with the patterns and architectural features of the surrounding buildings. buildings that need to be designed to be compatible with the scales in the height and depth surrounding the buildings. the form is compatible with out of surrounding buildings. the placement on scale of architectural details are windows that contribute to the architectural character of the building. lastly, a building that articulates itself to minimize impacts to light and privacy. quantity and size of the proposed deck on this building are claimed to invade privacy on buildings, not on the avenue as well as properties across the street on 17th avenue.
the exception of onyx chorney circumstances exist since it is contingent on approval of 25 17th avenue and are designed to respect the adjacent keylock. his proposed alternatives include reducing the size of the project are approximately 4,000 square feet, reducing the size of the deck on the second floor to 6 feet deep and removing a fire pit area and removing the third floor deck, removing the fourth floor deck where you'd providing a 5-foot site setback from the south lot line at an approximate -- and an approximate 67.5-foot rear setback along that south lot line. the second dr requester, a neighbor across the street to the east of the proposed project is concerned with the following issues. the property owner failed to submit a site survey which is a requirement for new construction. that the project does not conform to the residential design guidelines as just
mentioned above. and that the proposed building is contingent upon approval of 2,717th avenue prepared to the north and the adjacent property to the south which has not been considered adequately in the design. providing a site survey, reducing a scale at the rear to be consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. three allow a reasonably sized deck, single rear deck and four reduce the size of the project to approximately 3500 feet. same number of letters, basically because this is one project, we have ten letters in opposition and know letters in support. the project application, our review and recommendation ascertained that the project application does in fact include a site survey by a licensed lansurveyor. the residential design team reviewed this project and did confirm that this project does
present exception onyx ordinary person -- circumstances with respect to height, scale, neighborhood character, lights, privacy and parking. staff recommends the following modifications to respond to the issues brought forth by the dr requester's. number one, the project appears to be over parked with a garage for the more than maximum allowable cars to be part. staff recommends reducing the size of the garage by removing the demising wall between the parking and residential space approximately 5.5 feet forward which would allow for independent vehicular access 2 i get three cars. while the department does not evaluate the scale of a residential project on square footage or floor area ratios, the project was massed to disproportionately surrounding neighbors. staff therefore recommends that the department asked with a scale of the buildings at the rear, and maintain -- access for and incorporate the following features.
reduce the horizontal expansion at the rear of the second floor by approximately 5 feet. two, to reduce the horizontal expansion of the rear of the third floor by approximately 8 feet to column line 6 while maintaining a 5-foot site setback on the upper floors. and, number three, setback the front of the fourth of story 15 feet from the building wall. the approximate average between the two adjacent buildings upper floors. lastly, providing to address some of the architectural character features suggested providing angled bays on glass on all sides of the front. setting back the decks a minimum of 5 feet from all property lines and building edges consistent with the department criteria.
with the proper setbacks, step believes the location of the size of the decks are appropriate. staff recommends therefore that the commission take this and approved with the above modifications. this concludes i am here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you for that very thorough description. i am not going to make you repeat that. >> i wanted to apologize for the long-winded. >> all right. can we hear from dr requester number one? >> excuse me, the sponsor is asking the commission to approve two, 6,000 square-foot home, with seven external decks on the
street where the average home is less than 4,000 square feet with one deck. the proposed plans disrespect the existing character of our neighborhood and the city's planning process. both homes are overscale for the block. the planning department re- review of 27 17th avenue - identified the need for complete revision of the plans not 11th hour tweaks. the plans of the sponsor submitted are inaccurate. i hired architect to review the plans. they determine the plans under state the size of the two proposed homes by 840 square feet. the commission should not waste time hearing the sponsors 11th hour changes to bogus plans. the adjacent house to the north of number 25 is the largest of the townhouses come on the street. the proposed 25 and 27 are even
larger creating a massing problem with three monster houses in a row. the commission should require the sponsor to restart the process, and submit entirely new , accurate plans where the homes are in scale with the existing homes. misstatements in the discretionary reviewing analysis. the homes north of 25 17th avenue do not have a generally consistent alignment in there rear yards. number 17 has the greatest westward expansion. the application for 27 17th avenue includes a map, and not a boundary line survey as required by state law. the map labeled architectural site survey, submitted with the december 2018 plans is not a survey. attached is a draft copy, a document that should have been filed as survey record. this was filed with dpw when the plans were filed in december of
2018. the status of this application, as of yesterday is pending is the middle. the existing building does not retain the features of its front façade. the sponsor demolished a portion of the ground floor façade without permit. letters from dpw are not conclusive regarding lots 25 and 26. an e-mail exchange between mr. sanchez and mr. stores, the city surveyor was unable to say the two lots were legally created. mr. stores responded he is working with the city attorney towards resolution. the surveyor who prepared the coc application believes his client's title company might not accept the coc as per the attached e-mail. a formal, written, legal opinion from the city attorney that lots 25 and 26 were legally created is needed prior to the approval
of permits. sponsor statement. the sponsor has not brought the home at 25 17th avenue into compliance. it has been illegally straddling two lots for the last 30 months. the only way to bring the project into compliance is for the sponsor to start over by submitting a lot split application for the planning department. the route that should have been taken. the board of appeals denied the and allow the sponsor to complete the foundation replacement. the sponsor abandoned the work in june of 2018, without completing it. the second abatement permit should also be denied. the sponsor received a title policy for lot 21, a single, 50-foot lot. he also received the legal description for the 50-foot lot and a tax statement for lot 21. the city recognized the merger of the two lots. the cities 1985 revision of a
block map replaced lots 4 and number five with 21. since 1985 all building permits, complaints, and the planning departments were issued to lot 21. if the sponsor's claim there was no merger is correct, why did he submit a coc application? the two lot numbers would have been available. to building apartments and the abatement permit should be denied. approving permits based on false architectural plans, the illegal removal of a three-story bay and deck we give the property owner significant financial reward for as many improper acts. this would not be good public policy. it would also signal developers with false building plans are acceptable and if you are caught violating the building or planning code your abatement permit -- >> thank you. >> thank you for your time.
>> do we have any -- dr requester number two? >> good evening. i appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the pdr foz when opposition of the proposed projects on my block. my name is alan, my wife susie is a fourth-generation san franciscan who has lived in the city her entire life and mostly right in this neighborhood. i have lived in san francisco since we were married 35 years ago. for the past 20 years we have lived on 18th avenue. which makes us relatively newcomers, on the block, when compared to most of these neighbors who are here today to
oppose the approval of these projects. our home is located contiguous to and directly behind the proposed renovation of the existing home of 25 17th avenue. just offset the proposed new construction of a home at 27 17th avenue. i filed two discretionary review applications run in connection with each of these deeply flawed proposed projects. despite mr. winslow's thorough description, he failed to mention 26 neighbors a post of these projects was received by planning on the dr's applications were filed. in our neighborhood, 26 people, they're only ten houses on this block. when the project sponsor or purchase the property in 2015, indicated he had acquired lot 21 , 50-foot by 120-foot lot. since 1938, the legal description of this property described one, 50-foot lot and
since 1985 the city's own map lot 21, on block 13. clearly, in order to create two lots come a lot split should have been required. the project sponsor in this case has an improper avoided utilizing a suspect and questionable certificate of compliance project that has illegally denied the neighbors our rights under the law. suddenly in january of 2017, without any public notice or comment, presto, two lots suddenly existed. even without notices of violation, notices of enforcement pending on the property. i am being polite when i say the process may have been improper. these building permits should be denied simply because the legal existence of two lots is clearly in question.
in my view, the most important matter for you to consider in connection with these projects is integrity. or more distinctly, the lack of integrity as demonstrated in the project sponsor. this is not about expanding a luxury home, and adding another luxury home. this issue is about whether you, the planning commissioners, are going to condone and reward continued behavior of this and other project sponsors that repeatedly gain -- in order to build faster bigger than the law allows while lining their own pockets and disrespect the neighbors and destroy the fabric and character of our neighborhoods. probably after acquiring the property in 2015 the project sponsor engaged santos to deliberately, fraudulently submit plans that failed to show the existing three-story bay window in connection with the disingenuous request for building permit for foundation repair. the project sponsor then proceeded to illegally demolish a portion of the home in blatant
violation of the codes that you are empowered by the public to enforce. there is absolutely no dispute regarding these facts. the project sponsor was caught red-handed, notices of violation. when the project sponsor filed for an after permit to facilitate forgiveness for his crimes the board of appeals wisely found that the project sponsor and disregard for the law and the disrespect he showed for the community and didn't deserve to be approved. as i have indicated in my dr application, in the event that these is allowed to move forward despite the dishonesty of the project sponsor. our goal to see the renovations of 27 17th avenue and 25 17th avenue that both homes are appropriately sized relative to other homes in the neighborhood. we believe that reasonable home sizes will be no more than 5,000 square feet at 25, and no more than 4,027 to respect the lot at number 35.
in addition it would be our goal that the homes reflect architectural character of the neighborhood and both homes are designed in a manner that respects the privacy expectations and standards that currently exist in the neighborhood. if you you approve these permit she will be rewarding a bad actor with permits to build two monster homes when compared with the other med homes. 5,589 square feet at the existing home -- on 20 thank you. your time is up. >> seeing as there is just too dr requesters, we would take public comment in support of the dr. we would do this for both, right? i have some speaker cards. if i call your name, please come up. if you still want to speak, please come up.
we are going to limit each public comment to two minutes. >> since two of these issues are combined can we at least have three minutes, please? >> i will accept that. >> thank you. >> should i start? i am the old man on the block. i would like to say i lived my whole life at five jik, 17th avenue for more than 25 years which is actually true. that might be a bit misleading because i've actually been lucky and lived on this beautiful block with great neighbors for more than 55 years. this is the first new construction on our block foz on more than a hundred years. i am a post this project because
it has a significant negative impact on the openness and character of our block and our surrounding neighborhood. here's a picture of the house. as a developer bought it. it is a beautifully designed 20th century home on a 50-foot single lot. on the south side, which you really cannot see, there is a bay window, a huge deck. excuse me. i remembered attending a holiday party, having a drink on the deck, thinking what a beautiful deck. it would be a perfect spot for a romantic dinner. the award-winning high concept
architect. [inaudible] this is the project today. you will see from this first picture the bay window tower has been removed, and the deck, now the next picture. this is what we have been looking out for the last two years, okay. why did the developer do this? he wants to build this. so the deck has disappeared with the trellis, it was a beautiful, elegant building. and now he wants it to look like that. just terrible. he has no regards for the neighbors. he's not going to live in this spot, he just going to make money. this project is going to have a
devastating effect on our block. there's five houses on the street. the fact that he has destroyed one, and he's adding another one he's just ruining it. this next shot is to early 20th century design buildings space between them. what is happening is, if somebody put in something that is a fit, it would look like that. it has just been ruined. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. next speaker, please. >> i am daniel, co-owner of 1602 lake street with my wife, gwendolyn. the proposed construction can joins our backyard. i'm going to use" tonight, they are all from the developers
briefs submitted to the board of appeals meeting in september 2017. the saga of the three-story bay is worth a chapter in catch-22. they said they bought the lot in order to build a second house on the suppose it vacancy of the lot. actually, the three-story bay of the existing house was on the vacant half of the lot. no problem, they simply demolish it. then they claim that the permit they obtained to shore up the southern wall hovered the demolition they have already done. they said any errors or their faults, and they take full responsibility. >> sf gov. tv can you stay on the computer, please? >> i'm not sure what is happening here. >> continue, sir. >> actually, the permit application filed by santos did
not show the existing three-story bay. putting all of this together, what we have is, they told the planning department the lot was vacant. they got permission to build on the vacant lot. then they took that permission to mean they could demolish anything that was in their way. on that lot. excuse me. then they claim planning said it was a waste of time and money to rebuild a three-story bay. actually planning said no such thing. in fact they issued a notice of enforcement to replace the three-story bay exactly the way it had been. you've already heard about the lot to one and lot 2, now you see it gain. all of this left head spinning at the board of appeals meeting two years ago. everything came to a crashing halt to that night when building
rescinded the permission, because of the lot game that was being played. then, the board of appeals said, the property owners could still shore up the southern wall and so forth. true to pattern, the developers dropped this and it remains incomplete to this day. that meeting ended when the board asked mr. cantor if he was willing to work with the neighbors to resolve some of the disputes. he didn't respond. after two other attempts, he finally responded, can i have five minutes to discuss this with my team? the board said, no, and closed the meeting. the applicants have shown a continuing pattern -- a few more seconds please come of noncompliance with city code. this needs to be considered -- >> thank you, your time is up. you're all set. next speaker, please.
>> good evening commissioners, my name is gwendolyn. i am a southern neighbor. one of the 26 petitioners are testing this development. i have owned 1600 lake street for over 50 years. our neighborhood is a close knit community. seventeenth avenue impression -- improvement matching trees and installed underground utilities on our short cul-de-sac block ragged we have annual block parties for christmas and halloween. my 1909 house was known as the old easter seal house. it had been donated by charla's -- charles goudreau. even today, people stopped to admire the garden with the
stately palm trees. it is not just these people that are affected by these developments, but the entire neighborhood. although the claim has been made, in the record, public comment, see the overhead -- that there was no feedback from the neighbors. i have attended three meetings, in which we neighbors presented the developer with our unanswered questions and objections. twenty-six neighbors have signed a petition opposing this project and ten has submitted individual protest letters. all of the developers underhanded procedures described and documented by others today, the monster size of these houses and the inappropriate design demonstrate a lack of respect for the neighborhood. the developers endeavor to do a log split on a large lot in order to create a new house with a wall that blocks our light and access, amid open space.
first of all the proposed acts which overlook our house and yard invading our privacy. in addition to removing all decks except for those, could you please add a requirement that the various roofs be not filled in to make more decks in the future? thank you for reviewing the sponsor's request to go forward with these plans including their attempt to legalize the illegal lot. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. next speaker, please. my name is jim riley. we moved to 1601 lake street over 20 years ago with the intent to never move again and found a true home. sorry. it's a great place to live. i got to tell you. commissioners, i would ask you
to please consider all of the misleading statements, false plans, unpermitted demolition and lies that we have been subjected to for over three years. we have attended useless meetings by known bad actors who seem to have no respect for the rules. the owners and their professionals cannot seem to come up with something as simple as accurate square footage calculations. they are constantly changing. the december 2018 plans are still incorrect. there is no fourth floor roof deck at the top of the house. the proposed party deck, at 2,517th avenue or the ss dishonest at this location would be new and not a replacement. without permits or approval of the owners completed other alterations to the façade of number 25 by demolishing the garage come pedestrian entrance and cut back the wing walls on both sides of the garage and below the bay. why was a notice of violation
not issued for this removal like the three-story bay removed from the south side? the existing proposed plans for this area are incorrect. there existing floor plan has a future existing wing walls but does not show the pedestrian door at all. i also take exception to the last paragraph of mr. brown's response to the dr. he states we have not had one southern neighbor contact us with any questions or concern after our significant envelope reductions. why would we contact him? for more lies and misinformation. our concerns have never changed and i'm just one of those neighbors who is here today, or has sent letters opposing this project. one of the best aspects over the blocks is the green space we have around our homes. north of me is the historic charles sutra home with palm trees, mid block green space in the presidio beyond. number 25 that i call the ss obnoxious at 27 17th avenue,
built as planned, this open space would be replaced with three stories of wall. a wall that could be sold for a billboard space if it were south of market. the sides of the structures are just as important as the front of the façade. i would also like to mention a similar project to the southwest of me was built, instead of a nice tree line skyscape in the southwest sky at night, i see three floors of what appears to be 500 recess light fixtures. please do not allow this to happen on 17th avenue north of lake, times two, and ruin the character of our neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners.
my name is stephanie p. thirty-five years i have lived and worked in my house at 35, 17th avenue, directly south of lot 21. seventeenth and 18th avenue is north of lake street are comprised of short and narrow blocks that dead end into the presidio. on each side of the to the corner building at lake street. this is a quiet family neighborhood. the red dots on this map represent the 26 neighbors who submitted a petition opposing both houses asking they be reduced to size and scale and redesigned to fit into our neighborhood. ten neighbors neighbors write you letters of opposition. there are the buildings look like like cruise ships with their seven glass decks. we ask for one deck per house, like most of ours. the city has proposed design guidelines to minimize roof decks because of noise and pollution. the developers have designed a front 15 by 25-foot deck right next to my bedroom and work
area. we worry that these decks, if built can be filled in so we asked for requirement preventing the various roof areas from being converted into future decks. while i appreciate planning's intention, their modifications do not go quite far enough. my house would still be boxed in. the south wall of the new house extends a feet past my house blocking much of my mid block access with light and privacy taken away. it would help with the third floor fill in on the south side, could be eliminated. a helpful design change, removing or reducing the debt and extra closets on the south side of floors and three and four, of the new house, 27 would make a world of difference to my top floor professional art studio. my bath and stained glass windows will be covered by a wall. mr. cantor ignored my request for a light well. in conclusion -- the thoroughly
documented and proper procedures and misrepresentations to city staff, and neighbors, the massive size of the proposed houses and inappropriate design, for example the façade of house number 27 with its commercial glass canopy, demonstrate little consideration for the neighbors. please deny this bond as a request to go forward with these plans. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is josiah clark. i wanted to thank you all for being here. your patients on ability to focus after so many hours of this every day. i have lived at 1628 lake street my whole life. our house was built to in 1896. it shares a backyard property line with lot 21. i oppose this project because both of these proposed houses
are out of scale with houses on the block and significantly reduce the mid block open space shared with homes on 17th and 18th avenue and on lake street. the open space would be entirely removed. according to the proposed plans removing a wall of seven decks will be at the rear of our property. not only every a semblance of open space removed, equally significant is the removal of privacy creating a real fishbowl effect. we have many detached homes, and some homes on larger double lots. 1650 lake street is on a double lot. when it was for sale, many developers were interested, but there is a two-story bay extension that overhangs from the home next door at 1638 lake street. does this sound familiar? the illegal removal of the three-story bay from the south side of 25 -- 25 17th avenue itself took away the character of that home, and the west side of the block. developers have offered little in the way of accommodation to
neighborhood concerns, at their meetings. i worry about the precedent that sets for future construction. building two homes is certainly more profitable. however, it is without legal basis. i understand that the lot is designated as a single lot, and not as a double lot. there seems to be a pretty solid history with a paper trail that proves that this is a single lot in the developers know it. a simple example is that their bank loan is based on a single lot. also, removing, without a permit, three levels of southern bay windows to ensure a space for a second home does not designate the available space as a second lot. additionally, it is hard to watch our city allow some developers to work the system, while other residents, architects and developers follow the rules, obtain the permits, engaging in the required steps of the approval process.
finally, i think it would be true justice if this this commission mandated the original bay windows they replaced instead of allowing the developer to move forward and just ask forgiveness. this process has been a galvanizing force among neighborhoods. you will continue to hear about the underhanded, dishonest, downright slimy tactic used by our opposition. in a time when integrity in government is in question that even the highest levels,, honorable commissioners to keep this legit, uphold the law, and hold our opposition accountable. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. my name is lynn, i may lake district neighbor concerned about these projects. the developer purchased a single-family home at 25 17th avenue in august of 2015 with the intent of splitting the 50-foot lot in developing a spec house in the current site yard.
in order to accomplish this, he has undertaken illegal demolition of a three-story bay and a deck. notices of violation related to these demolitions were issued by the dbi in july of 2016. the planning department issued a notice of enforcement requiring the property owner to replace the three story bay exactly at is that existed before the removal. the property owners first request to abate the notices of violation was denied by the board of appeals in the fall of 2017. your approval of the building permit will abate these notices, violation, send a message to the developer community that it is okay to ignore the sittings building a planning commission code, because if you are the city will approve a permit to abate your violation. the planning commission should deny the developers application to abate the two notices of violation for the illegal removal of a three-story bay and deck structure.
the developer, of these projects, has consistently been less than truthful with the neighbors, and staff in the planning department, regarding the size and scope of the renovation at 25 17th avenue. he has submitted three different sets of architectural plans claiming that the existing home be as large as 5817 square feet, and as small as 4858 square feet. all of these plans cannot be accurate. further, a forensic architect who verified that the proposed size of both 25 17th avenue and 27 17th avenue has been understated by the sponsor. the planning department is proposing three alternatives for remodeling an existing fourth floor sun deck at 25 17th avenue. a deck that did not exist, but is just a flat roof. another example of false plans.
additionally, the plans before you do not show the existing rooftop solar insulation. the remodel permit, for 2,517th avenue should be denied as it was based on false plans and approve the abatement. the developer has misrepresented the project to the city staff and neighbors, he has shown himself to be a bad actor. these projects could already be underway if the established processes have not been followed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is addie, and i have lived nearby the proposed project for 35 years. i am reading remarks by brian turner and the land use attorney. this letter concerns discretionary review application for 25 17th avenue and 27 17th
avenue in the lake district and the richmond district of san francisco. i am a licensed california attorney with a person interested in protecting the city and county of san francisco's if approve the project would legalize an unpermitted demolition project of the portion of the residence in the south façade of 25, 17th avenue. it would allow for a large rear horizontal addition, large horizontal front addition and fourth story, and have the foreseeable effect of causing a major new construction project on the existing home south side, 27 17th avenue, by authorizing a lot split despite their longtime merger. the summary of the argument, the manner in which the planning
department has assessed the district level historic level at 25 17th avenue is in direct contradiction to a previous review on the same block. in 2012 the department concluded that the lake district was eligible for the california register of historical resources. twenty-five 17th avenue would likely be a contributed historic property to the district. however for the purposes of this review the department has changed they approach to the historic district evaluation. evaluating the ten homes on 17th avenue between lake and
presidio concluding that no historic district exists. this approach contradicts established preservation standards for historic district evaluations. will result in a failure of the city to properly consider the effects of the 25 and 27 projects in contributing properties that have been previously determined eligible historical, historic districts in violation of ceqa's requirements. until my evaluation has been completed. i am handing you the 2012 ceqa that i referred to. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners, coalition. the intricacies and irregularities of this project are beyond and definitely beyond
the ten minutes that the requesters had. suffice it to say, that the whole saga of the lot split is questionable. the reason i'm saying that is because what we have on file, which is architectural site survey. that is not an official survey certified, and i have proof in the putting right here. overhead please. this is the record of the survey that was filed for lot number 25, i believe. as you can see right here, the status is pending applicant. if you look here, it is hard to see through the caption, close caption, but it does say the last status that was reported for this, the survey