Skip to main content

tv   Planning Commission 21116  SFGTV  February 14, 2016 6:00am-7:46am PST

6:00 am
the south part of the block here as reasonable rear yard open space because of the two warehouses buildings and only three or four percent open space that has permeable soils the unique feature of the block because of the mccormick alley the center the rear yard space where the two warehouses building is important because it is the only place to extend the rear yard to the front and the back of the building on larkin, hyde and ma alcoholic their 90 degrees if that structure will be compromised did plans are not accurate they show an exception
6:01 am
the back and rear yard w asked the project sponsor not to do development the open space a in center the building area we don't feel the design of the front facade office that much of the old building it is a static building. >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good work my name is michelle i'm a property owner and a membership the pan in a a sixth involved in the development of the pacific avenue mcd spent many long evenings sdukz what the neighborhood wanted and work
6:02 am
with the planning commission the contents the non-conforming use was of great discussion we knew that would impact. >> ma'am, for clarity our speaking on behalf of as an individual; right? >> an individual yes. >> the consensus thought is of the non-conforming units of the group was that any non-conforming building that was significantly revised dense fizz height or exterior calls needs to meet the pacific avenue neighborhood commercial district requirement this final product was thoroughly discussed asia vetdz and depraved in 20074 by the board of supervisors and i'm requesting that the commission oppose this project as it didn't
6:03 am
meet the pacific avenue mcd requirement that were legislationed in 2007 thank you >> commissioners i'm betsy in that narrow alley moourng lived there. 27 years i ask you respectfully deny the variances for this proposed design you've seen this 1459 is unusual the internet and unusual having two buildings of the sized of 1469 that intersect two mid block so we concerned about today is not just the
6:04 am
impact of 1469 but a precedent that will be set for others roadhouses warehouses the area of that great scale i wanted to show you a couple of pictures this is looking at from the all alley. >> this is looking from within the alley back towards larkin street where i've drawn the line is the back of the 7 and 9 mccormick going straight across as you can see the promoted part of front of that project goes right here and this is the current height of the building the county those buildings on larkin will be plaintiff's next in order those windows will be blocked that is going to be blocked and the
6:05 am
light in in this building their concerned about life enrichment committee to show you our suicides we're on the opposite side in 1419 backs our lot and this is our view and we've made the most of it is the same height as the building of 1469 this our current light of this building this is another building on hyde street so keeping this height of the existing building is going do block credible light we're never going to get that rear yard benefit in order to use that as not public space but the
6:06 am
open space there we'll be a privacy fence going up not only noise potential but also we're going to lose yet more light if we put a fence and going to go out and look at it straight up and sometimes seeing the sky from where we are thank you. >> commissioner president fong and members the police station my name is kathleen i'm chair the housing and zone powering is russian hill association we've submitted and letter in support of discretionary review we want to bring a couple of things to to your attention so this is an
6:07 am
opportunity attire the neighborhood it to make a positive contributions to the 22 residents that surrendered unfortunately 9 plan didn't rise to the challenge this i guess we just- the pre19 to sanborn map we sent around to you this looks like 16 structures in that area and those structures sheds i don't know what they were were and calling your attention the open space that is around the perimeter the fact that the post earthquake apartment particularly those on larkin had a lot of light and air in 1920 the areas consolidated and
6:08 am
unfortunately at that time, no provision for light and air considerations for light and air so what is a this is the perimeters fortunately it was on this second story high so not a lot of blockage it didn't cause that much problems for the people on larkin jonas if you can do the overhead okay. you or. >> not an unusual situation mr. madden kooushgz within the blocks that are of the same mass that are posed for development and looking to you for direction 5 years ago the refraining community association was in meeting with the commission and trying to to save the garage we lost told you i remind you 80 such garages of that massive site and most of them in
6:09 am
district 3 the focus on this projects are request you look at the impact on larkin we have people who's property abuts the windows are 6 feet 9 inches the massing and maybe up to 10 feet those people will be looking at a 50 foot takeover we quasi thank you courtney your time is up. >> good evening commissioner president fong and members i'm ralph an architect in is an rose and a long time firstborn of robin and many months ago robin asked me to interpret the
6:10 am
disdain and salute it against the. >> sir if you were rained our opportunity to speak was the 10 minute presentation, however, a 2 minute rebuttal you may use. >> as a friend and to help robin and others to understand what is proposed and as i'm a formal chair the design review braid boarding the city of san radios that's i understand. >> i understand but if robin tucker is representing at her request our evaluating the project. >> let's continue you speaking. >> okay. thank you. >> as an architect i believe
6:11 am
in development and i believe in higher density i think the site is appropriate change higher dense i think what is really at issue here is what andrew touched on the chapping in an non-conforming building and adding housing units within the rear yard set back i think when we spoke to the developer his comment was to not time to remove the rear yards but those minor inconvenience is a - that improves the liveability and the fact that building is a 3 site long building and is being
6:12 am
promoted and 4 stories casts a shadows open pacific avenue it will reduce the amount of light and air on the street and casts a shadows on the northern properties pa so pacific avenue has two travel lanes and 1 parking lane a building of this mass is over onerous and with that, i would ask you to give me and ask the developer to come back with a more predicament building a great opportunities to help heal the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> i have been more speaker cards in support of the request you dr requester. >> thank you all thank you for your time obviously be partiality i'm gabt my thoughts i've lived at 1864 larkin apt 4
6:13 am
for that 20 years and around the corner the larkin and pacific although it didn't directly impact my view or light i must say an vince convenience is subjective term and historically i've seen a small home across the street with a yard become a single-family home, of course, it is is not a large encroachment of the condos in the space that will roam for parking and take up i understand my building that will be you see people come outside in their bluecoats but take that building and it is a structure and turn
6:14 am
it into luxury condos is unnecessary and unhonorable i know that is the physical boundary there was a long term neighborhood residents it highly overstates our neighborhood and takeawa takeaways from the value of neighborhood. >> okay. any other speakers in support of dr requester? >> sure. >> leave them right there. >> put them right there. >> any other speakers in support of dr requester okay project sponsor.
6:15 am
>> good afternoon with reuben, junius & rose representing the project sponsor this code can't be what we read from the planning code to the extent it is unclear the planning code says is zoning administrators job to make sure that is needed to pacific avenue and the mcd zone was created 9 years ago and amended on 13 occasions but what the code says today in this case no ambiguity what the code is
6:16 am
intending to provide on the overhead if you look at the actual section one 34 it is intended to sure the continuation of the established mid block open spaces the 2007 rediscovering rezoning is those originals in our packets and they talk about for instance, preserving the character neighborhood and the code section for the specific mcd protecting the rear yard patterns and i've pulled up a dictionary the word preserve to maintain something in its state and protect to preserve something no where the code does the the president of the rear yard setback talk about creating an open space mid block open space where one didn't exist on
6:17 am
the overhead american people area of the site we do not have an existing mid block open space where the property is if we increased the building envelope our the volume within the 45 percent rear yard yes, we'll be asking for something that is inconsistent with the intent but this is not the case we have an exist building, however, we're not increasing or enlarging it within the 4 to 5 percent rear yard, in fact, we're doing the opposite the mid block area we're lore lowering by 10 feet so in short i mean are we preserving the existing setback pattern like the code calls absolutely we improving the existing conditions nothing here
6:18 am
inconsistent with the intent of the code with respect to the rear yard the same 9 years ago it was 65 and now 45 we're proposing the height that the paramount if in neighborhoods ems to the architect now. >> good evening, commissioners james planning architects the greenest building is already builds as you may know on the pacific avenue site it is occupied by concrete and industrial buildings that covers the lot by withholding. >> sfgovtv the overhead. >> those are a good continue condition to keep tons of concrete out of landfill that had been under the termslessly drive to the neighborhoods
6:19 am
we begin at pacific avenue for the 45 percent setback line as you can see by the materials we plan to use high quality materials for the streetscape we have setback walls 5 feet and for the neighbors privacy few fargo windows and those are at clear story height will be frosted next, we have an open green space people 25 percent of the lot depth located on the raffle 10 feet above grade and kit it down and possible up to 10 feet and have the small industry at the rear housing and two more units i don't understand the 45 percent line no part of new construction of the parapet walls the neighbors have been
6:20 am
live with will status quo be a round of applause if you look at the shadow studies you'll see at the rear no other shadows casted by the neighbors to the left and right of property thank you very much. >> calling for speakers in support of project sponsor (calling names). >> good evening he live across the street on pacific avenue we have been there 6 years and
6:21 am
the structure is right cross and a lot of windows facing the property in question there is two components that we'd like you to consider in your decision one is would actually happens the evening and at night in front of those buildings to be honest it is disgusting we see prostitutes, we see homeless people that have to sleep there, there is a lot to be said for making change i very much understand the concerns but the change is necessary to clean up that neighborhood from those unwanted incidents we actually have to go so far to install a security system to get
6:22 am
rid of graffiti on the wall and clean up the front porch quite a bit from urination and i'd like to add one thing to that is we too on the other side on the north side will be impacted by losing views we enjoy but we believe that this space on pacific avenue that is currently used doesn't make sense and actively it is a beautiful neighborhood the neighborhood playground run and a lot of new stores and changes ideal i'm sorry but we believe that make sense to have 7, 8, 9 units to provide the housing we desperately need from the
6:23 am
neighborhoods that is out dated so thank you for considering question. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioner president fong and members my name is dean beach i'm on his partner we live across the street from the 1469 we've lived there 6 years and as mentioned at least ones per month drug dealers and prostitutes and homeless cabinets that is sad and at times pedestrian urinating or defecating in front of the building on our building and i'm sure some of the people the room that opposite this project hsa have seen that as well 24 block is primarily
6:24 am
residential daycare believe with that will not e radicals did problems but improve the desegregate of the neighborhood we hope you'll for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commission my name is geary nelson a retired architecture if usf i live the district i'm pleased for the support i've managed many contradiction projects over the last 20 years there were built by the gentleman's construction company i consider his work to be the highest quality i'm impress that the design and scale of the project that is appropriate and as i understand makings for the
6:25 am
surrounding neighborhood i encourage the commission to approve as opponent i'm a certificate california's disaster professional the assessment project matt haney i have train it inspect building after an earthquake when the next year earthquake occurs the city should think encouraging projects to be built as soon as possible i would note in yesterday's he chronicle supervisor peskin supported the 62 housing units two blocks from this site over a huge story in the lombard site he said our biggest imperative is building homes.
6:26 am
>> good evening. i'm chris i'm a local retained and business owner in the strict district i want to emphasize one we heard about those chairs that are mid block and they're from other era out of sync in the walking streets hard to run a business 16 thousand square feet building we talk about the size in specific while the alternative having trucks trying to back into a motion and a second garage it is not conducive we'll see the warehouses hang that is a key part, and, secondly, by changing from an impersonal warehouses that closes at 5 o'clock we deal with the walking streets and the restaurants we go to becomes a hole the community as we walk by this and this takes away the
6:27 am
holes and probably the one thing a paul it was ingenious with the design actually an architect wouldn't think of taking an existing sit up and not changing the rear yard or enforce to the residents not putting the building it is massive and he's gone over in great detail how to tuck in two residential units to the folks they won't know that is in there and to tear that down to move the massing up a level the makings will go someplace if you don't put the units you'll move them forward and this is really ingenious the way that is creating for the
6:28 am
rear yard thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners my name is robin i have a small business on pacific avenue over the last 10 years i want to say i'm not in favor of that development i've worked there and come in late at night and fixing computer all hours having a warehouses has been out of place in the on the street we do so all kinds of nevada razor activities and camtc if in at least there is stuff happening i've been unhappy with that building being used the way it is i look at the plan but the the
6:29 am
gentleman had about what they'll do i believe that is well-designed i think that will fit still within the character of the neighborhood and enhance it to be a better place and actually have street front business there also so the block that will more as a small business owner i want more traffic on the street that's it thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have a small company fwlars design we we were looking
6:30 am
for a space last summary and having difficulty finding one and had an opportunity to meet paul and peter and paul generously made it possible to move in on a temporary basis on pacific avenue and make your products it is a custom - he helped us with the move and refine the space and helped us build the machine beyond our skills that allowed us to make our production and he's a terrific, terrific guy the family is wonderful to us and we hope you'll approve those plans. >> is there any additional public comment? >> in support of project sponsor. >> okay dr requester two
6:31 am
minute rebuttal. >> i think he was talking two loud before some thoughts please we welcomed do project as long as it respects the neighborhoods neighbors the chu family and the family they've asked you to say appear before you tonight on behalf of them norman on behalf of the the larkin street families and also new construction is not a solution to criminal eradicating social problems minimizing construction is not a reason to
6:32 am
build any inappropriate structures the code sections that the sponsors rental unit on the face they appear to be well and, in fact, those of us who were working on drafting the code sections and of the legislation that later become pacific avenue mcd i think are in a very good position to comment about what that legislative intent the exclusive summary in our inpatients says that the zoning controls are intended to preserve and to enhance the neighborhoods yards to open up the space and in addition it says their preempted controls we
6:33 am
knew they would be misdemeanor but not intended to be modified to allow for construction that is so massive at the fronts of the building we come up with the building thank you. >> project sponsor you have two minutes. >> thank you so i am not i want to be clear we don't disagree we believe that we are consistent point objectives the pacific avenue limousine we're eliminating a chairs and if you put up the overheads adjacent in yellow are 5 lots in the 31 units those 5 lots are the same size we're proposing 9 units which is on a lot of 8 thousand plus square
6:34 am
feet and not including the stimulant will be other than positive the height is 40 feet which is exactly what the zone said and many of the other buildings provide across the street at 1424 pacific a project that allows the rear and the 4th floor tavrj the setback to 25 percent that an in a has no objection a demolition that on one mccormick people objected and exclaimed about the construction from the demolition unlike 1424 pacific not adding volume in fact we're reducing it unlike mccormick this construction related impact so
6:35 am
sum up we're eliminating the warehouses and add 9 new unions without actually adrc any volume within that 45 percent rear yard and that is was it calls for it calls for preservation of existing character not enhancement the rear yard but the existing mid block open space that didn't expectatiist can pass this around that is right here and available. >> thank you. >> that portion the hearing is closed. >> allison park i've spent a lot of time and appreciate the project sponsor and also the dr requester i made two separate visits i got to see it from the prospective of the site itself
6:36 am
as well as the residents of the dr requester so i have a real good prospective on what exists there i think the first one i promised the dr requester and everyone involved we'll get specific about the dimensions maybe ask the project sponsor attorney/client privilege to examine correct me if i am wrong and have questions i'll ask the staff to intervention the whole building is one 36 inches it as wide long building and what i understand is that the project is supposed to - the 40 foot parts of that will extend back 75 feet and after that that is going to be a 35 foot area that is brought down 20 to 10 feet
6:37 am
and then the rearmost 26.5, 6, 7 feet remains the 20 feet now i may have to ask the project sponsor they can claim additional feet is that 40 or 55 feet how high is this building actually will be in front. >> it is 40 meet obviously a typography so on pacific avenue but this is the mid .40 feet with a 4 foot parapet and, of course, pafb is this way the western part of the project is the letter part and lower than from the ground. >> that's correct. >> it is certifying that's the key part the same the midsection your are. >> bringing it down do 10 feet
6:38 am
how high is the parapet. >> the mid-portion once - the 4 line and the main building front building stops we have a approximately 35 foot deck we currently have an elevation approximately 20 foot evaluation and lower the roof 10 feet and have the size and those are from the floor of the lower level 7 feet 6 inches to match the structural beam that rinses within the building a horizontal beam that is where that machlz up this is why. >> you're saying the wall think one of the seats is 7 foot 6 from the ground you from the
6:39 am
elevation. >> i'll take your word for 17, 6 this is what it is. >> this is is interior the building if you walk insides the building see it so right here this is where it is going to be lowered this will be the roof if you look at want structural beam that we're going to cut it down if the midsection to keep this structural beam here that also going to be - the elevation and an additional. >> the equal will be 7 foot by the middle section 10. >> the impact as far as light and air and a portion of that and movpg back to the back 20 feet i assume your saying exactly within the height and
6:40 am
not raising anything. >> that's correct it is a the a parapet that remains at the 20 foot elevation. >> so that answers a lot of questions you mentioned to me, you have as you go back 80 feats on the eastern part of the building begins and setback to 75 feet if it's a correct. >> on the overhead again so, yes when you start from the front thirty feats a 5 feet setback with an court and a image here and another setback that repeats on both sides. >> yeah. i was talking about the east side but also on the west that first thirty feet on the west is not have the 5 foot
6:41 am
setback; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> that's the part that concerns me looked at the map that was given by one the dr speakers it looks likes places on larkin street as you approach pacific some of them face pacific avenue; is that correct over and over the amending between 1469 and the larkin street buildings. >> i believe they all - they all face. >> sanborn map maybe dated is it wloolz they face the other directs. >> there are some that face specifically. >> all right. let's assume they face that or have significant space so the one part that might be of concern a
6:42 am
6 foot 10 inch separation between 1469 and buildings on larkin. >> it is more than 6 feet. >> 6 foot 10 inches. >> excuse me. the people in the audience can refrain from speaking out if the commissioners ask you a direct question you'll be given an opportunity to speak. >> so, anyway let's assume it is 6 foot 10 inches so the portion of your building that goes back the first 75 feet will have a larger impact instead of three now it will be 40 feet and so that will be more of an impact on those building on pacific not all of them you're cutting down part of midsection
6:43 am
you're having less than of an impact than before the middle so the section if the first 75 feet may have light and air i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say i like the project is cleaver and provides 9 units they're big units the neighbors does have an impact they may lose view but not light and air the guys on the west he may have impacts to loyalty that's where i might be supportive of the 5 foot separation the frnlt part of building that will provide more light and air to those units at the fronts of the first few units on pacific that he move on larkin as they move back from pacific motion of what i
6:44 am
have to say as far you know, i think you know it is good to build something i disagree building something sdpoo good doesn't drive out the bad. >> if you have activity you're less to have less crime it is not before us but as far as the rear yard situation i'll defer to the zoning administrator but it sounds like we're not adrc anything new we're basically convert that that is back there now not adding anything into the existing rear yard but a conversion changing that from industrial use to a housing use commissioner hillis. >> so i am not first of all,
6:45 am
have an issue with taking this this and converting it into residential unit it is a good idea i agree with the continuing to use this as an industrial building off in the middle of this residential block doesn't work i don't know. i don't feel the design the building rose to the challenge of the site i think you know you've emigrate american people industrial building with all lot coverage that brings issues to some of the neighbors because they're facing this kind of model the back with the 20 feet wall the neighbors accumulated that but it seems like you added on a typical residential project that maximize 80 so you get from the front no indication of this industrial building or what was
6:46 am
there it is kind of takes away that character and puts in a typical residential building but the back go saddle them with the industrial 20 foot high wall i think that design wise it could have been respond more to what is there either you have a great lot to build onion that what came out of the responses well, i have concerns for some of the neighbors on larkin and that you know again they're now facing the wall and adrc going floors for the first two buildings there on larkin. >> so again, i have a - not a problem with the project but the execution wasn't quite what i would want to look for on that
6:47 am
site again, i think i if you walk by a vacant lot and building a four story residential building but roach the rear yard and come apply that the 45 rear yard setback or vice versa keep 9 rear yard and take down the walls to allow for life enrichment committee or neighbors to see into the open space pr and try to retain the industrial character maybe sixth district that from larkin street i don't know. i have the answers but i don't think what i'm seeing in front of us responds to the challenge that you have on that lot so i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> i'm not to agree with commissioner hillis this was the old location
6:48 am
and it is times for this to be i absolutely building that residential use is the right choices given that building but i feel that commissioner hillis thought about maybe being a little bit too aggressive i think that is creative there is go bundle of units in the back but for me not much consideration for the neighbors on larkin street and unit number 9 and i think oh, 8 and 9. >> so the main building up front no consideration. >> a little bit of light to combo that rear of the larkin units i'm smart enough not to try to design i don't have the stills skills but still obviously to maximize and get
6:49 am
some unions to make unions 8 and 9 smaller and pinch that a little bit. >> supervisor scott wiener. >> it is interesting you're starting to removing that it was totally groovy it is a dated building i've lived if this neighborhood for the last 44 years and it is used to be just desserts practices to go we're - the con dessert place that makes wonder breadon dessert place th wonder breado dessert place tha wonder breadn dessert place tha wonder breade dessert place thas wonder bread and . >> i think i'm picking up on what one of the people said a building out of sync not as an industrial building it is the
6:50 am
size and where e where it fission a 67 length an impossible building to redesign in a residential building the sites with the width of 68 or 7 feet give us a great ability to design housing at its best in a neighborhoods with the right height in a neighborhoods e go to do it in a way that sth this commission has challenges the one project i'll reform you the methodist church on larkin and clay we managed to put the. >> (speaking chinese.) and that's one of the shortcomings of this project we don't want to support elevated open space on top of a garage particularly when the garage itself didn't meet the
6:51 am
requirements on to pacific pacific is as opposed to be designed with active commercial footage and in the back was supposed to be creating open space in scale with the surrendered department to your attention after the accident toil one the commercial space on the east side of the project is hardly recognizable partial the center the entrance of the garage is the emergency pedestrian requirement for the units the rear and above and on the other side is an under sized lobby that sits next to the 4 foot wide liveable breezeway between the adjoining properties that is where the project starts to unravel to the design would do we don't really have 9
6:52 am
recognizable again storefront right now the storefront is a space going up whoops we lost the commercial and then the lobby which should be invite recognizable lobby it operationally is subordinate to the width of the year ago door plus the emergency door this is not what we want for residential to side to be distinct from a lively island of streets of commercial space that indeed has qualities like the past people really want to go to i'll take that further and agree with your outcomes commissioner president fong this is sub standards units because their assessed from the second story going down to an
6:53 am
undersized courtyard so small determined by the offer sized terrace on the front see side of the rear side of the building complicated to understand wasn't woob in the interest of this project so take it on and look at the vacant lot i'll suggest any open space the parking is predictable even partial footprint put into the basement in a stacked version that's supportable and the ability for a deep lot put dwelling units with proper exposure and connections to american people open space could set this up for d and create a project that needs a larger set but potentially produces for units an incredible amount of
6:54 am
waftsdz space i like to direct your attention to a and see how the exit requirement really look at this they're like long snakes by which the whole thing looks like a rabbit hole sorry about the negative word but really fighting with residential design where a little is more compact additional achieve the same things plus a better building and i think first and foremost i accountability it i stood on the roof and looked at the parking lot to the detriment to almost 22 other buildings nearby there is something which i think this project needs to respond to i think that should respond to
6:55 am
it can respond and a lot of sites i'm just basically i'll suggest you continue it and send it it out with a lot of support for redesign and have it come back. >> i'll ask a question are you suggesting to do this properly to suggest demolishing the existing building and starting if scratch. >> the building is out of sync this particular building and it's rent less size covers the lot not for a initiative housing site you can't achieve that. >> i'm going to request the project sponsor is trying to avoid a demolition by all means it is trying to work with the, of this existing structure. >> may i answer
6:56 am
the demolition will be a year impact to the neighbors in a big way the air quality and the structure time probable 67 most to a year all the utilities exist the building that was the big feature we're going to adjust some of the side walls. >> so just to be clear at the most is from the stand point you'll prefer not to demolish and with work the existing structure. >> yes. >> e thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i get the narrative i met point project sponsor completely understand the green aspect and the cost saves i even though in the dr requester and understand the concerns they had the first
6:57 am
question the zoning administrator the section within a-1 rule it looks like we're changing that building in a significant way does that trigger it more xrients or bringing it into experience. >> the structure is not performing with the codes from a integral prospective not increase the non-conforming so they were proposing to expands to be to a rear yard variance but the code says we have structure that is located the required rear yard that didn't have and your invent first degree the non-conforming structure that requires a rear yard variance and this project is the densification of non-conforming industry we're proposing is reducing some of the normal reducing the size of
6:58 am
the backyard to they're dropping down the courtyard that prides the open space from a mass structural prospective they're not - from the use prospective their increasing the dense first degree. >> will that trigger the fled to bring this that into come a time night. >> this didn't in and of itself require. >> i with all the commissioners when i quacked awe from the meeting the other day was that the first the walls between the larkin street and the building building on the one side of ma comic this was a
6:59 am
concrete wall for parking and the courtyards 7 feet or of creates a not liveable situation because of the parking this will be a better project to put the parking underground and leave a 10 foot wall between you and the neighbor that makes it marrow liveable and much lessen american people impairment that is impacted by this i think this is the other kind of smoking gun what the scombb g the recommendation on the unions in the backyard sxhoeltd into the front provides a a presentation and is use abilities parking by sub
7:00 am
congratulated. >> can you speak into the mike. >> it should be sub grade and stacks we're recommending with the minimum assess and preempt for the moved and seconded open space new constructions for the - that to be is a smoking gun and something i'm not support the project as given staff's recommendation with the concerns that have been expressed i want to move to continue this to something that manuals we'll come back with something that fits into what we need. >> one classification the previous considerations have additional commissioner makras the rear yard and the consideration promoted two additional stories from the back
7:01 am
of that at the 20 foot level without itself previous plans they're a little bit lost. >> some of those there is so much information so i move to continue the project to may - >> may 12. >> may 12th. >> second. >> okay. if we should do that give the project sponsor a clear direction commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i sunshine have thoughts first of all, ask staff i've heard that the units count cannot exceed 9; is that correct or not correct and that's correct the unit count that is permitted by the - is one. >> 9 units. >> one units for every one
7:02 am
thousand square feet of block area we rounded it up. >> that settles that is all the units it is well done we want to get those larger units that had been good to continue with the 9 units then i think there is a sounds like many of the commissioners are looking to establish the open space at gray that might involve roving part of the back building and would not have to be 45 percent because there is already a possible of a surveillance that could have growth u brought down the second first floor and modified open space so i can't say for sure the zoning administrator will opine but some of the back might have to come down that one suggestion parking below grade is a
7:03 am
possibility it opens up more space for a living structure on the ground levels it didn't center to be stacked it is on this 9 units if you go to the expense that area below you can get 9 parking spaces so and then the other issue about the larkin buildings i would say whatever is over there should not be any higher than the existing walls you know if you go up other 40 feet like a 5 feet setback or some sort of setback away from there if you choose to leave the wall that i think that that setback adjacent to larkin street should extend for the entire 75 feet in my opinion and gaining the street with the subterranean so keep the frame
7:04 am
of the building except for the back part of it, yes project sponsor do you want to responds. >> as far as the subterranean parking. >> without demolishing you can approach the sub transparence parking the demolition we're trying to avoid. >> that may not be a suggestion that may work if you keep the building we'll cut back the rear walls and what you are suggesting to put the two units together with the front building; is that correct. >> correct. >> but change the two units foot back and apple up for the benefit of the light the light is from the south so i think it
7:05 am
was miss stated they said that mccormick will be affected by the presence of the new building the light from the other side. >> i was there that opening the middle was a good suggestion but sounds like there it seems to me interest on the part of commissions to have open space at the ground level. >> put the open space in the back i don't - >> yeah. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but that might be the wisest way to side that and work within the envelope but still be a pretty good sized envelope okay. thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> so for me i'll give two
7:06 am
distributions and have been need be but i think one will be preserving those two units the back and covet the massing the back a at least where the two units but the courtyards and the parking cutting down the graded make that more a court the neighbors will not experience the wall but the makings of the wall at the front to come down and respond to what was around larkin street by a demolition where you kind of comply that the rear yard 4 feet that is going to lead to additional massing the front by looking at it like you were developing a vacant lot here of this size so you i am not i'll go either way
7:07 am
but where it is at knowledge to thought about of these. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate everything trying to weigh in and shape the building i think the building needs to be shorter it needs to confine a massing by which the space can be on the ground the unit design and well proposed unite will determine quality of the open space and how to meets the demise the ground floor up the building on the east side and west side should open 5 feet not stick out that much given it is 3 blocks next to each that is the way to deal with that the garage lobby and retail should be completely reconsidered i think that the garage and the
7:08 am
blank door the garage entry might move to the west side because that is the lowest part of site with more units and deal with setting the rest of the entrance so you set the garage entrance back the secondary entrance is not on the side but don't need the doors next to each other the retail entrance has to be clear of the stairs you want as much of a window of a retail space sorry in thank you and i think there is a lot to play with that is a huge building the units are large enough to make some kind of decision that didn't entail the
7:09 am
design and maybe be better when you splitting looked at the design and it is possible. >> commissioner vice president richards and i guess question for ms. tucker you get something acceptable from a live ability you think you can do that come up two a couple of designs with mid block with the open space and the open spaces the rear a southern percentage of the yards would you borrowing to d do that. >> we have met and that's an open invitation i think we need to look at - how
7:10 am
can we accomplish what the commissioners said and if that make sense meet with ms. tucker. >> please come to the microphone. >> i think that would be wonderful. all the neighbors i would last week to make one comment go ahead >> it is not about me it is about the neighborhood and the neighbors. >> sure. >> so meeting with me is. >> so have so speak to the neighborhood good this is great i called the project sponsor and said i talked with ms. tucker i think we can make this work and come up with something we can approve and not take dr. >> mr. t. >> thank you. i wanted to speak to the variance request a little bit for genes for the
7:11 am
to variance requests in front of me one important 9 use of existing structure as for residential the rear yard generally supportive of that obviously that can change because of the expect of the using some of all the portion the existing backyard for residential use i'm supportive, however, the other was for the balconies and because those are for the required to meet the minimum open space requirements for the project i don't feel like meet the test of what was for the surveillance because of the options for me but the variance aim generally supportive of and obviously any new design that comes out of the commissioners suggestions we'll look at that separately. >> jonas.
7:12 am
>> continue to may 12th. >> yep. >> very good a tenant-landlord to continue to may 12th with directions. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and zoning administrator, what say you? >> >> continue the variance hearing until may 12th. >> thank you commissioners that place us on item 16 for case at 36 avenue
7:13 am
>> project sponsor i'm sorry staff. >> dr requester good evening planning commission devine southwest team leader subject property in 14 thirty, 36 after the project was continues from two earlier dates the project is horizontal and vertical rear violation to include a family regime and two bedrooms and then additional master suit the area the rh1 residential district and district as single-family residences the concern about the
7:14 am
residential unit being added into the subject dwell and the amount of soil excavated and since 24 continuation that was further determined the project is not presenting issue on the surrounding property with the existing residents and no additional environmental review and the building design is function as a single-family residences and furthers any concerns regarding soil is or soils stability is under the purview the department of building inspection the residential design team say it is consistent with the design team and no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and
7:15 am
dr requester please. >> i wanted to hand in materials some additional letters and these are additional materials proposed for the dr proposal for the commission. >> i wonder is commissioner moore going to be taking part if in this it seems unreliable 0 reasonable without one of the commissioners available. >> she maybe the back watching she's quick to catch if you want to start and anything important she'll have a - have 34 feedback. >> start now. >> commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm steve of the fox law enforcement we represent the longest residents
7:16 am
of the house immediately setting the project center the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ♪ case clear evidence that the property project is not intended or designed to be a single-family home but rather designed to create a illegal unit or a three bedrooms short-term rental the project sponsor intended from the start to create a second units and the project was designed this way the owner saw the neighbors i have sworn affidavits in your page in in addition the additional plans shown at the preoperative meeting a kitchen a second kitchen that and a laundry room on the second level that was intended to be a second units the pardon didn't change the only change to the original plans to erase the kitchen
7:17 am
counters and determine a laundry on the letter room the second launders room took to a closet on the original plans were modified and remove the second washer drier the launders facilities were relocated to the garage and the mosaics puts the launders facilities so they can be used but think upper and lower accepted unit remember this is an rh1 one unit is allowed and adrc implicating to that part of garage makes that easy to add an illegal kitchen this is fifth story bedrooms is larger then than the residences on the block i want to introduce if you can turn on the overheads red the center is the size of
7:18 am
this units as compared to the average size or so of the surrounding block now under the approved plans it is extremely easy to convert all it takes to close the door between the upper and lower units it is a closed stair state police it is an access to the strait the lower units as a bath and powder room and a large family room where the kitchen was on the original plans the lower units can assess the washer and dryer the garage level makes it easy to add an illegal second kitchen the planning department has
7:19 am
additions that can a - those policies railroad for the properly applied i'd like to i've passed out some proposed conditions of approval but the conditions will within to cut back the size of the unit by 6 feet it machlz the adjacent property that there illuminate within bedroom with a 45 bedroom house, and, secondly, an n s r to restrict the addition are conversion is to a second units and stack take steps if a quasi units we ask for short-term rentals rental use this could potentially be considered a hosted amusements is the expire three bedroom lover floor to leased out 365 a requester we
7:20 am
didn't believe the tennis of the city and the commission to have three bedrooms to have rented out thank you very much >> speakers if support of dr requester. >> thank you, commissioners my name is my name is a form neighbor i'm submitting - >> ma'am, are you part of dr times then our time to aspect was or speak was those. >> you can submit the testimony if in writing. >> any other speakers in support of the dr requester if not dr requester please.
7:21 am
good evening commissioner president fong and commissioners if i can get the overhead please. >> just to orient you to the site this is the project sponsors house this is the dr requester here so as you can see the context that is probably the smallest house on the block and there's nothing in terms of of a vertical addition here this is a 20 foot highway in a 40 foot zone in vertical addition proposed that will remain the same height all the addition at the rear that will extend beyond the dr requesters highway the rear by 5 feet it was reduced starting out at 15 the project sponsor reduced to 5 knocked out 2/3rd's and we think
7:22 am
that is reasonable here's and renders that show us the addition this guess taking the place of a roof deck here now it will be 5 hundred square feet and as you can see here it extends 5 feet part of the yards dr requesters house and this is their objection that will be flush with the neighborhood next door which is also an important to illustrate the context we're going flush with that. >> incidental there is a lot of miss pz of the play out of two
7:23 am
floors and perhaps this is led to some of the dr requesters confusion this is the remodeled ground floor it will have a garage here you enter will be a playroom there or will be 6 people initially the house that will rise to 7 i'll go through how the bedrooms lay outs you enter a playroom and child's bedroom that is important christopher two bedrooms and for mr. lee's apartments that live with the family now and will continue to live with the family now we go upstairs there will be a master bedroom for mr. lee and his wife and another bedroom here for the child's hayley and a studies fire mr. lee he's an
7:24 am
engineering that will be his study for 6 people a modest number of bedrooms if we have another child they'll plan the household will be getting small for them so there's nothing here that is nevada raz nephros no. >> it is modest as i stated the lee's made good gentlemen's tursz by eliminating the
7:25 am
horizontal addition and deleted a staircase at the rear the building as requested the fronts of the home had been preserved as is no variances here there was nothing, nothing presented by the dr requester that amounts to an streerd circumstances the project does nothing more than bring the lee's home to a neighbor's to the south and north and remain a full story shorter than the adjacent neighbor to the north any impact on the neighbors is so small as to be negotiable it was reviewed by others and
7:26 am
approved without any restrictions the staff has recommended the commission not take dr and the staff report as notified overview noticed by mr. washington it didn't present any issues to the property or the surrendered property. >> mr. silverman thank you very much. >> other speakers in support of project sponsor. >> any speakers the project sponsor not part of project sponsor team. >> dr requester a 10 minute rebuttal pursue thank you commissioners i'm keep to short it is latest i want to say if
7:27 am
rebuttal mr. silvermans explanation was interesting but the first we've heard it the words he said this was intended to be a two unit building we're not macro feel up i also want to note the guideline is not something that was offend by the project sponsor by the planning staff so the good neighborhood gestures i want to say the record is clear that this can easily be originally stated it is intended to be - it was designed it be a two unit with minimal changes the plan e racing a kitchen the point is that original the president was stated granted
7:28 am
speak to the project sponsors current course but the reference was clear that was the original intent the building was modified and it would be stooerld easily to bring this building to a two unit building and so i ask the commission to consider this and to look at changes that that we suggested reasonable conditions so we'll provide more thank you very much. >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> the postage arithmetic will speak. >> okay
7:29 am
commissioner president fong and commissioners thanks for spending the time i want to correct the dr representative there is no tension for to project to create a second unit it was misunderstood the elderly in law they living downstairs have a problem clemg the steps so some convenience and so they could prepare food for themselves and baby-sit the skids stay downstairs and also by looking at the chart the house it not over 3 thousand square feet the total of the house is one thousand square feet with the space probably
7:30 am
runs about nine hundred one thousand maximum so the house is about 2 thousand square feet that's all the living space i don't know how they get the idea this is a 35 hundred square feet house to okay that's the things i want to add >> hello commissioners. i'm hadden wife and i purchased the house in july of 2014 with full intentions of occupying the entire house we have too young children and we need the infrastructure space my mom and dad south africa can stay and we wanted to. >> sir - sir, your time is up.
7:31 am
>> thank you. >> public comment is closed. and commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he guess a question for probably mr. washington. >> there are how many bedrooms on that bottom level inform the back and that was said to be a playroom. >> there's three bedrooms on the ground floor. >> on the ground floor so i guess for project sponsor if you have the ground floor is for the patterns that live there so grandparents why are there so many bedrooms. >> you need to a couple and speak into the microphone please. one bedroom for each grandparent and one for a child and next to that is the playroom the
7:32 am
children's playroom upstairs the master bedroom and one bedroom for a child's with the study there. >> and the laundry room was american people is bottom floor; is that correct? >> yes. >> and no laundry on the main floor. >> only one so because you have on the become anyway those are my main concerns and within master or two bathrooms is that one or. >> two. >> within full a bath on the bottom. >> yeah. i don't know i don't see any problem with an n s r to prohibit a legal unit second
7:33 am
unit but so the connection there's a separate entertains entrance tattoosntertains entrance tattoosins entrance tatto entrance tattoosentrance tattot ground floor. >> if somebody can turn the machine on it is hard to read an existing doorway a regular doorway exiting the garage door that doorway is state law e stating from the center center of the diagram a door by the stairs from the outside and then cross the hallway which is you know a few feet wide to another door it is the entrance into the lower units it is essentially a entrance to the lower area.
7:34 am
>> the case could be made the grandparents have trouble with the stairs but get them in from the ground floor. >> it could be an explanation but facilitates that. >> i have question about the connection between the two floors is there a door or that connection. >> not an open connection a stair that i can't tell you as doorway at the upper and lower ends the closing off of one of the doors is is a separate area for the units and . >> yeah. this is. >> and no internal connection. >> that's usual project sponsor you want to answer some
7:35 am
of the questions i don't know, there are separate doors. >> sfgovtv go to the docket. >> i wanted 0 connect first of all, that was the beginning and after that we saw the vision this is the latest floor plans what's the changes from the other back here the addition and also no direct connection from the street to here the side building goes to the garage so there is no decree connection from that living area and also an internal survey up
7:36 am
here so the outside and go up the stair so an internal connection. >> ongoing thank you commissioner hillis. >> so for discretionary review we've got to determine if there is exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and south american the back no addition will kind of go out 6 feet and experiencing a change that didn't necessary rise in my mind to exceptional or extraordinary to condition our neighbors space or any kind of san francisco house in a units space is that's our issue i mean, i don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary what they're building is fine people have upstairs and downstairs and
7:37 am
certainly an additional units call dbi and complain and see if there's an additional units but to try to reconfigure that anybody can put walls and doors and address additional units did not rise to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances so i'll move not to take dr and approve as proposed. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate what you just said i can't be sure i only second-guess but it does raise a question this family would sell the house would be exactly can they'll do tail sell the highway an indication to center doing that the typical indicators and
7:38 am
mr. washington will agree they're there ensue in this case, i be given kwhat family are planning it do no reason for us to second-guess the house they'll put an extra restriction on the title the expansion by itself is intent to support the larger family that's the on thing i can think of because otherwise i think we shouldn't be taking dr commissioner hillis if you'll be amenable to expanding that the rh1. >> that project move on to another owner while find. >> as take dr to do. >> given an rfp zone - >> i don't see the i mean, we should do that on any rh1 i
7:39 am
don't again may make people feel better but don't nothing if you want american people alternative motion feel free but if there is no commissioners, on that motion exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. >> i'll second that motion i guess the question would be on the short-term rental issue could we put a condition on app applicable laws have or have to covered. >> your conditioninging things in place that's already the law. >> rh1 is already the law. >> could we walk in and get an over-the-counter permit for the kitchen.
7:40 am
>> they can't. >> only if the codes if someone came in into a rfp with the intention to add a second kitchen not a member of the department that will say you can do that again upstairs and we'll - we don't add a second kitchen. >> it make sense that the case to the zoning changed to rh2 we want to make sure that is a second single-family dwelling. >> i think that the refreshed my memory is odd you have to go through a large family room to get into the bedroom at the back in the things are designed and instead to surface the bedrooms so i would be supportive of an n s r and move against the motion if it fails i'll make a motion
7:41 am
to take dr saw second. >> question should this is to comply and there is a second. >> so we have to i can make a motion. >> yeah. >> i'll take dr and put a notice of special restrictions to emphasize the fact a single-family dwelling and remain that way in the future. >> just to clarify a condition the zoning changes to rh2 they can't have a second unit. >> well it is double u doubtful that will happen. >> just to be clear that will put. >> supervisors make a motion to put a motion it is limited to one unit under the current
7:42 am
zoning as you that's the n s r only one kitchen only. >> second. >> sorry that's a motion. >> there was a second. >> small business call the question. >> can clarification i was not contrary on the motion what the n s r is for is it for their loudly to have the zoning laws or something else. >> the n s r is go by director rahaim explanation a single-family residences and you can word is better but there's only one kitchen lout if a single-family residences. >> the motion to limit it will to be loud under the zoning. >> under the zoning
7:43 am
classification. >> is that fair. >> it is really the same. >> as what the zoning allows. >> okay there is a motion that has been seconded and to succumb apply with the speed limit on that. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and require an n s r to state that - on be allowed to, what is allowed under the current zoning. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and mr. brooks so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places you in general public comment i have no speaker cards general public comment tonight not seeing any, general public comment is closed. and the meeting is
7:44 am
7:45 am
parks and places of communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. we had a very very unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily used parks and squares. >> parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity. bringing those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what san francisco is and wants to be. >> it's all about breaking apart the divide. the people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. this is really breaking down the digital divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedo

24 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on