tv Board of Appeals 11916 SFGTV November 11, 2016 4:00pm-8:01pm PST
>> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by our vice president commissioner fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig we do expect commissioner bobby wilson to be here to my left is thomas owen and gary the local assistant executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting at the table in the front is scott sanchez the city
zoning administrator here representing the planning department and the planning commission as well and in a moment we'll see building inspector joe duffy return to the room representing the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction
forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking so if you could your right hand swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the
truth? >> i do. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner president honda and supervisors we have one housekeeping item has to do with with item 5 appeal 16 danish zero regardi0 regarding 16th avenue a permit has been cancelled at the appeal is no longer under the board's jurisdiction and will not be heard tonight we'll move on to item one general public comment this is the opportunity time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction any public general public comment seeing none, item 2 commissioner questions or comments commissioners okay. then item 3 is the boards consideration of minutes of october 26, 2016. >> unless additions or changes
can i have a motion? >> to accept those. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes seeing none, a motion if commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig. >> okay. that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you very much item 4 was continued last time for commissioner wilson participation with the presidents agreement we will hold off on that item and move to the next item on the calendar item 5 is dismissed item 6 appeal wang versus the zoning administrator on merry lemon drive of a notice of violation and penalty alleging the code
with the use of the the subject property on the limitations for the accessary dwellings and the appellant is the appellant in the room? please step forward >> thank you you have 7 minutes to address the board okay. please bring the microphone down to speak into that. >> good evening and welcome. >> and thank you for being patient. >> should i say first? okay. this is for any friends he set up the inspector he didn't really have the violation because i have two friends and the friends and family going to the address but the inspector say he is operating a business
is violates the code so we just want to resolve this probl problem. >> is that it. >> yes. this problem too many friends. >> a questions are you aware of the conversation between you and the department because it is dated in our brief - let me talk first although. >> how much time do you call the department and what were the responses. >> according to the paper and e-mail he probably called during the hours i know the inspector only will accept before 8 possibly why they never get a bill from the station with the
inspector matthew's the inspector. >> so how many times - >> a lot of times i look at them probably 20 times. >> and never, never once did the department person call you back. >> i think the from time to time they did but maybe i didn't pick up the phone in the meantime they not connect with each other. >> okay. >> the only time i think they really connect to each other through the e-mail. >> so the person that lives at the address is he present. >> yes. >> maybe i can help answer speak some of the questions come to the podium. >> state your name for the record. >> i'm van. >> so the question is how much time do you call the department
and what. >> more than ten times and during that time. >> during the time we kept the letter we e-mailed more than ten times i can't remember how much time my office workers call having to send an e-mail too you know no notice and until we got the fine letter you know then he answered the one time that's all. >> okay. thank you very much. >> okay. >> that's it thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the subject property mira loma within an radically there are limited uses allowed as
accessory to a accessary dwelling in a residential zoning district not maintenance of stoke and trade and not employees earlier this year the complaint to may we received complaints from the public that there was an ongoing business at the the subject property employees were coming and going our understanding being used just to the dwelling for storage and equipment for electrical contractor in the morning employees we are picking up equipment and going out for jobs during the day they were doing this early there were contemplates not insistent of a residential district in question started our process with a site visit that is correspondence with mr. one-way and our staff as well as phone calls record up to and including the day the
appeal was filed that e-mail what staff worked out over the time it was ongoing discussion with the planning department i can't say what - who is not calling them back from the lowers from the staff we were trying to resolve the staff to depreciated it to a manner we believe that reduced the impacts on the neighbors and that happened the day before the appeal was filed and was agreed they'll be more mindful and not have their employees coming out to the property for limited as recommended by mr. wang an emergency if they had an employee that needed something from a job and the night before pickup in the morning that happened on the curve we're trying to work with them we know those are not uncommon types of used for the residential
district but want to address the concerns of the neighbors so that's right the point we were at in august and again have regular communications they've admitted two complaints on the property one planning went to building and inspector duffy can address the complaint 329 department of building inspection but it sounds like that was verified it was used for storage electrical equipment which is not the thing that is allowed under the planning code but we are trying to work with them to come up with a way of addressing that will allow them to have a business but reduce the impacts on neighbors and make that more residential in character after the appeal was filed i had my staff reach out to the appellate and try to get a better understanding of what was going on based on those communications they were appealing the staff time we
charge for cover time and materials we spent on enforcement this is not appealable it says in the letter itself explicit the time and materials is not appealable that is just time and material and wear allotted to collect that we've not been assessing penalties under this property they've been working with us coming into compliance no outstanding penalty but they have an outstanding material charges approximately $1,200 outlined in the letter that's where we are at today i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a couple of mr. sanchez how do you track when in coming calls are taken and e-mails are returned i mean going off the briefs and you know this seems to be not enough
fair exchange of information according to the brief we received. >> i think one of the points two enforcement cases i don't know if they specified who was not returning their calls. >> certainly in our notice of violation penalty is documented conversations that we've had with them additionally i mean, i have an e-mail he can pass up to the board you know june 8th e-mailed to mr. wang describing the notice of enforcement and the code compliant and an analogy on the ninth and june 9th mr. wang during the phone calls describing the planning code permission this is no early august and august 22nd i mean interest is evidence of the e-mails i don't know when they're saying staff if call them back evidence was communicated to resolve the
complainant we thought was resolved the day before. >> is there a set policy when the public calls. >> yes. the goal is twenty-four hours we do our best and at staff has more than one thousand cases we have an enforcement staff but we try to respond to everyone in a timing fashion i believe mike what i'll hearing from the appellant no communication is not what the fact support as this case i'm reading from the. >> the problem, no brief. >> no information here. >> all we have is one page of the appellant that didn't say anything to provide new details to what their allegations are and have no information or from the department other than the letter. >> that's correct. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you.
>> let me just i mean there is a gentleman's name mentions in the public document that person's name is a non-richmond party but ii agree with commissioner fung what we have the appellant saying i've called them a bunch of time but no documentation on that and you're reading from your information which clearly is documents but we don't have it in our brief and so it is we're stuck we said she said may i ask you what this is all about so i can ask the appellant something latter please. what? all about someone doing business out of a residence this is not right; correct? >> you can will have a home
based bus but it neatest to needs to be done in a residential manner. >> they were operating a nuisance in the eyes of the neighbors was created as to materials being i'm imagining the materials from the homes a garage being up used as a warehouse possibly stuff like that. >> and coming and going. >> one of the main things people are woolken up - >> the nov was filed based on the complaint of the neighbors and even if no e-mails communication and something that was satisfactory to your department. >> the have addressed it we did inform them only august 22nd
we'll keep the can i go e case open in the case there are further complaint to readily monitor it we outlined how they can comply and there was agreement at that time. >> with that said the issue the $1,270 of staff time and expenses related to this case and appropriate under the planning code. >> as not in our notice of violation not appealable i'll note the cost to file the appeal is $600 that is half of the materials. >> okay. >> so what we are talking about here as far as i'm concerned, the appeal is on the notice of violation but about the dwelling units. >> that's what i understood from the subsequent
communications. >> i'll ask that from the appellant. >> mr. sanchez one 09 point of your letter indicates photos. >> do you have those i don't have those with me but maybe i'll get them online. >> commissioners did you want to hear from inspector duffy. >> not before you. >> any public comment? seeing none, there is rebuttal for the appellant and the president as questions so if you could come back please. >> you have any rebuttal that you want to add. >> i'm sorry, i understand the
situation is because he doesn't know what the violation code is but he received a letter on january 15th and clean up the place already told the people not to come to the house it is very quiet so as matthew the inspector say he still seeing people in and out of the house so it is excess to that that you have operating and still in violated the law and served him - i mean the payment was one thousand 2 hundred something i understand he try to call and someone said not to appeal it won't do you, you any good that's why we are here. >> so just a couple of things
first of all, as the zoning administrator judge said in the planning code there are stated fees that are associated with and a - with a notice of violation this thing violation came as a result of a neighbor complaint that is unanimous but when you file on appeal it costs $650 and then in the planning code if the planning department has to come out and investigate unfortunately where the person they're investigating has to pay for the time of the investigation and the materials so the $1,270 is the $650 appeal cost and that time and . >> i did -
>> huh? >> separate. >> that is on top of the departments t and m costs. >> this is the law non-negotiable and it comes with you have a notice of violation what is concerning to me i'd like to ask i guess your friend or client or appellant. >> there seems to be a record of conversation as of the zoning administrator just was reading from june 8th, june 9th and august 20th and 21st felt a conversation ongoing between yourself and the planning department and so you understand there was conversation regardless of telephone calls in the night and
the zoning administrator stated he worked you, you to resolve the issue and you agreed to do that that was to be quiet in the morning and keep everything suitable for your neighbors so - in your eyes was there that conversation. >> where is the e-mail. >> i - where is the e-mails. >> they'll get answered. >> the question is the commissioner swig is asking did the receive e-mails from the department. >> off of that. >> so what is making me scratching my head the zoning administrator said in june and again in august he has recordings and e-mails that
there was a negotiation a notice that you can fix this we'll help you and there was a resolution sometime around august 22nd from the zoning administrator who was the zoning administrator talking to if he wasn't talking to you beyond this. >> i think that he wanted to talk with inspector matthew i understand that the inspector is not normally at the office that's why he never really get a chance to talk with him and he just had to tell his friend that someone got e-mail from the party. >> so he - >> there - here's the thing the zoning administrator
somebody in planning was communicating with the that mr. wang i'm sorry mr. wang or something in your office there was a dialogue blavrt and it was a good dialogue and resulted in the planning department considered a resolution it is done everything is fine but now you say no communication which something is - and the main thing i wanted to talk with mr. matthew not a chance to talk with him that's why he considered no communication. >> we understand that but were e-mails received it all by anybody? >> so the point he didn't get a good communication i saw the
e-mail i know there was some communication but he's open thinking. >> regardless of ohio when a notice of violation occurs automatically according to the law fees are charged they have time and they are expenses related to enforcing that notice of violation so and that's a non-negotiable situation non-appealable situation at the least you'll have to pay the $1,200. >> that's the problem i'm not bio rated. >> can you speak into the microphone please. i think the timeline and maybe we'll get clarification from maybe the zoning administrator i think they felt they were wander correct me if i am wrong that you were wander and had communication and thought you fixed it and the notice of
violation came after is that what you're saying. >> i received the first violation and fixed it the inspector came in and fixed the problem in march so in june the is okay. this is the violation it's not fixed that's why he didn't understand that according to the record it was abated. >> i think we'll get clarification from the department thank you. >> thank you. >> yeah. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> that he fixed it. >> okay scott sanchez planning department. put on - >> to clear this up. >> e-mails let's see so - >> next time maybe a case like this you'll want to help us send
along the e-mails and everything in the brief please. yes. >> over the overhead an e-mail from our staff to mr. wang and . >> can the expand a little bit so i can read the letters. >> one question before you start going the day you said you had conversations in march and in june that's when the notice of violation came i think the clarification in the timeline of that so you mentioned conversations in july and august maybe you can help to clear that up mr. sanchez. >> so there was as i mentioned a separate case from building department it was opened no january and that was about storage of materials that appears to be resolved in march
and the case was closed in march then the planning complaints was first really appears to be received in early may so there's. >> basically two cases they're talking about the resolution of the first case this is the second case. >> right may 9 a notice of complaint and then on june 6th we submitted our notice of enforcement then june 8th staff had contacts on june 8th and 9 with mr. wang following that additional evidence in july the complaint was ongoing and on july 27th staff observed the vehicles arriving at the property going to the garage and picking up materials then on june - july 27th we sent an e-mail to mr. wang with the -
the notice of violation was not issued until july 17th the general timeline let me go back to some of the - >> that's fine. >> when did the resolution you mentioned. >> august 22nd. >> what you thought was resolved. >> august 22nd so i'll put on the overhead here can i have the overhead? this is an e-mail from mr. wang saying the employees will not come up ever again to get things if they need anything i'll bring it down to them they're not coming into the property a public street you confirmed this when i spoke to you on the phone and he asked what is next is the complaint closed staff responded your; correct an employee cannot come to the property but you can
bring those to the public right-of-way they're not allowed on the property the case is open for monitoring i'll let you know as quickly as possible if i receive any complaints and you'll not be fined daily but administrative fee prior to the closure of the case part of notice of violation and it was 1271 and stated not appealable and happy to talk with mr. one-way and reduce some way the fees make sure the time was properly accounted for i mean, we're obligated to collect. >> who did the appeal. >> i think they thought they have an opportunity to get some money back but it was explained to them prior that it was not and if you guys you know pardon me. >> that's not correct what
their appealing based on the fact in their, their stating not a fact but stating is that the department did not act correctly in terms of communicating with them therefore it should be thrown out. >> the nov. >> i believe that's what they're asking. >> if we throw out the nov there's the issue of time and materials we've spent. >> no nov they can't charge their appealing the nov. >> can the permit holders come to the podium please. >> two minutes. >> yeah. >> so after i mean it makes it harder when we don't have full briefs according to the department what happened was you
had a storage of equipment violation that was abated and that was done as you said in march but in may you were there was another notice of violation from planning in regards to the employees still on the property the letters and e-mails that were corresponding with the department indicate that you have fixed it august 22nd but that's after the had already been given a notice of violation those fees are not refundably through this board; is that correct. >> no no. >> your misunderstanding two separate notice of violations. >> a letter we fix it already. >> but the department already indicated they saw poem r0e678 equipment after.
>> that's not true because pie house was leaking water and to fix leaking not moving the equipment not true. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> okay. >> ask your question. >> yeah. >> i think you know and that's where the conundrum is because the planning department is saying they did a site visit after the building department issue was abated and therefore saw those issues and the appellant is saying that didn't happen. >> mr. sanchez can i see some documentati documentation. >> thank you so i'm not able to assess the photographs but there is a timeline in the notice of violation and penalty which details the finding from
staff and i mean, we did find there was a violation they have corrected it and so that's why we are seeking the time and materials we had that time and materials. >> can we - show us that e-mail again. >> sure. >> on the overhead. >> the e-mail from a general e-mail address didn't have the appellants name on it does it. >> no, i mean he signed off with thank you but staff addressed to to mr. wang electrical construction and he states the employees will not come up ever again to get things that's what we were trying to work with them to get the violation abated. >> so somebody from the organization responded therefore had been in communication with
your staff. >> yes. and our staff was responding to someone at the electrical current construction site and see they generally don't sign off on their name and the staff race responding to mr. wang if they saw mr. wangs writing they would have written back. >> can you go to the beginning of e-mail to see that date. >> this is the e-mail that came in the day before the appeal was filed and i saw that one but an earlier, one. >> one from june did you say june 8th or 9 a earlier in the day where the writer has consumption with our department they asked
the staff they say he know who is making the complaint the people across the street - before that staff has communications with them on august 1st because they've informed them on july 29th additional information about the work and activity happening at the property i mean, that's - then back to june 9th an initial when the second notice went out so - >> on june 9th i think this is what i'm trying to if i could commissioner on june 9th there had been a complaint filed by the public and that complaint related to -
by the time there had been a complaint may it 2 filed by the public there was a business activity that was believe it or not them at the site so i'm bending over backward and on july 27th the inspector said this was continued activity at the site and bending over backward that was a coincidence the day a water leak at his house but regardless of that a notice of violation was created well before july 22nd and seemed to continued that practice continued in some fashion or a conversation wouldn't have happened in august. >> right. >> so okay a coincidence that the inspector was there, there
was real construction at the house that was still that went out of there they were still activity there that was causing the neighborhood angst and i mean, the public complaints to dbi in january that seems to be abated in march but that is restricted to our department in may. >> the second notice of violation valid aside from july 27th may or may not construction legitimate there were continued violations as admissions to that. >> their argument there was not and received just within the department said there is prove but the department didn't have the pictures and i apologize for not having the photos we have it
in our materials and the foitsdz were submitted by members of the public staff did investigate did two site visits and eyewitnesses and it was admitted in the e-mail they'll stop having their employees come to the site i thought that was sufficient evidence of a violation. >> were the complaint all unanimo unanimous. >> you can't say. >> do you have records. >> our system is not compliant with the ipad that appears. >> maybe that will be once the department. >> we'll all wait thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> you know a new system.
>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> for me the documentation is in the notice of violation and i have not heard anything to refute it. >> the problem the appellant has not provided i can understand perhaps i'm guessing there was some level of frustration on their part because it's not always easy to deal with planning department staff. >> especially the enforcement people and i think their there's issues there which i'm not going to get into but probably some frustration therefore led to perhaps certain actions, however, the proof they needed
to provide in terms of documentation was what was disputing. >> you have something else for us mr. sanchez. >> my apologies this was a photo by the complainant stated this is from friday september 9th and saturday september 11th i mean. >> those two were. >> the vehicles. >> in the driveway. >> yes. >> this was submitted in september and part of complaint there was from their e-mail at the continued to have work trucks for loading and unloading this was september 9th and 10. >> thank you mr. sanchez.
>> thank you. >> i think the appellant want to put this behind them they'll have to pay the fee and conform to the requirements of code. >> care to make a motion commissioner. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis the zoning administrator neither erred more abused his discretion. >> to uphold the notice of violation commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner campagnoli is absent commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero schold it didn't appear that commissioner wilson. >> exactly what is the alternative at this point. >> i know item 4 was continued for no participation i understand. >> is there a resolution. >> i don't know but further
discuss of a resolution i don't know from the board want to let them discuss with the board we can put it over for commissioner swig participation. >> this is a light evening. >> perhaps madam director try to reach commissioner wilson to see if she's in route autsdz unfortunately any cell phone died if she's trying to reach me her phone number is in my system. >> is that an e-mail. >> i left any phone in the office. >> all i can do you want to try that that would be great. >> do you want me to wait to call the item. >> no. >> this is item 4 versus the zoning administrator the property on broderick protesting
the issuance on the rear yard variance for a two-story at the rear the two-story building this was heard on july 13, 2016, and september 21st, 2016, and it is on for further consideration today we can give with the president's agreement 3 minutes to give me the board an update starting with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you i'm steve i didn't straiie stra >> we met again with ray and came to an agreement we thought in principle that he was not
going to expand above the ground level but expand the ground level all the way down to the existing deck i have a photo from my oh, thank you and you know he would expand more on the ground floor versus et al. on the first floor that was virtual from our deck and instead of moving the stairs where you see in this photo - let me move up which overhanger backyard he was planning to move them tucked into the house but we agreed okay keep the stairs as is and expand all the way on the ground level to the existing decks and no examination at that level or top level and we were happy to be
done with that but ray had to go back and get approval i think when he did that it turned out we needed to build a firewall to keep the existing stairs where they are and i'm not sure like the original surveillance was not approving the stairs but would you agree to having a firewall to having the stairs rebuilt with the firewall going along our property we asked that that looks like and not sure and got a picture a solid way all the way down our backyard on the sides we get the most sun coming in, of course, we wanted to resolve this we went back and said you know what if this was only a suggestion but with a transparent material on the part above the deck seems like this
is not a possibility but possible to put the stairs on the other side which you know we can't see very well but already a taller wall on the south side so having to put a firewall is less obstruct active and or go to the variance where that is tucked into the expansion where the upper stairs are he basic said no way that's where we are these days so we would have been happy to sign off on what we agreed to in principle could we have left the stairs as they are but not a possibility. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you.
>> okay, sir. >> yes. good evening for the most part ms. supervishriveshri >> after costly meeting with any architect and agreed in principle to leave that has stairs in the current condition i'm not a building expert back and forth a financial cost with changes for his time to contact scotts office they agreed i gave up the entire second floor expansion which was difficult for me to do and all i'm asking is this particular stair that is currently there not moving moving it either makes my deck smaller or i would - it would
help them now i have to do the same process to the setting their moving the problems to a different neighbor and costly for me again they're very unflexible during the process we contacted scotts office multiple times and got guidance how the firewall should be built i have pictures what i submit to the schiffer's braefrt this is a current sketch and obviously with the new firewall in particular section here all i'm asking they tried to drag this on no other options after i so inflexiblely gave up the second floor expansion to agree on the small piece based
on i'm asking the board to approve the variance based on the due diligence scotts office has done. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> did you say one option was to not replace the stair. >> no one of the options was to keep the steps in their current status the evaporates that was granted move forward the steps to the other side and it keeps the steps from - >> are those stairs need to be replaced because they're not in good shape. >> yes. the deck and the steps are at least minimum thirty years old when we do the construction that will make sense to tear it down and build that with newer material i'm open with a transparent material that helps they're light. >> that didn't work.
>> correct. >> and which is what i tried to explain to them. >> you've answered any question. >> thank you very much. >> can i ask a question. >> what we moved from is you wanting to build out the floor above the ground floor and the third floor. >> no the second floor. >> and given away on the second floor that allows you know this picture that someone created shows you will be completely blocked if you did the second floor over this issue has been abated and that light continues and so - >> you have compromised significantly on that point. >> significantly compromised
and for the appellant some loss of light because of firewall that is required by the city and you know but i have to compliment you - yes, he have the photo in the case you anyone wants to see that. >> i have their photo from their point of view. >> an expansion. >> and - >> a big issue because that blocked their loyalty from their house but now there maybe a little bit of president your cake and eat it, too. >> yes. they want me to move the steps completely out of their way completely inflexible. >> mr. sanchez okay. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> - sorry public comment. no public comment. commissioners that is up to you if you want to make a motion to
do something with the variance or you want to continue it for commissioner wilson. >> so can i have some advise please i have trouble - >> if we were to accept a suggestion which is to - build on, on the lower level but maintain the stairs with the firewall is that a uphold the appeal with the direction that. >> grant the appeal. >> what. >> grant the appeal with the change that would remove the second floor expansion from the project and move the project to the lower floor of the sustaining the existing stair
and the firewall is required by planning. >> it sound like there were plans drawn up. >> the easiest thing to condition the variance on the project reflecting what those plans look like again you're looking at the 5 finding required for a variance you need to decide if those vtsd have not been met and if they're met by virtue of conditioning the project. >> i believe my concerns at the previous hearings and -- excuse-me. from memory that issue that the view - the second floor was really the issue for me and my feelings whether i verbalize them or not whether there was some project sponsor was not showing as much
flexibility as i thought he might but in fact, with the removal of that big chunk of construction on the second floor which a blocks that clear view a big conversation here you know the best compromise we're both go away feeling they didn't get what we wanted but something i think this is the districts i'd like to take. >> fellow commissioners. >> i will agree with that. >> it may very well come to that as you recall i indicated at the last meeting my first indication would be to remove a portion of the ground floor and you wanted 45; right? >> set by the 45 line and they had done that then the new stair
could have been added adjacent without a firewall that then had the further mid block open space obstruction of the second floor this stair would be going from the down to grade would go down to the rear yard so the height above would be less than the height of a full floor at this point. >> the stair would stay in the same place. >> we're talking about moving that over. >> you want a picture on the
overhead to help with this. >> sure. >> this is a picture that the architect drew up of what the firewall will look like. >> the fenced between our two homes is roughly at what height. >> lower. >> here's the - (inaudible) how will the firewall roughly to the it up of that rail; right? >> right that is basically okay. my only concern this is our backyard a little backyard will block the sun in our little backyard i'll be fine with keeping the stairs as they are if there's a
way to build them without the firewall or - >> some other possibility. >> we understand your point already yes, thank you. >> i think. >> we understand your point and like to indulge our point but unfortunately laws preventing that that's the way it is. >> thank you the other option deny the appeal. >> uh-huh. >> that is the option but that didn't. >> then there's going to a structure think all levels. >> but they're concerned about the things being blocked even if with this this blocked less than the other. >> okay and significantly. >> all right.
>> and in terms of 5 conditions this will alleviate the issue of causing causing a burden or i always forgot the condition but causing a hardship this removes the hardship. >> the hardship is looking at the hardship on the property owner you'll be talking about the impact to the. >> impact to the neighborhood. >> to the neighbors. >> for me. >> unless anyone else has a motion we tried to make one. >> go ahead and make the motion but i'll repeat what i said last time the permit holder has a variance as far as i'm concerned, not as of right. >> say it again, please. >> the variance not as of right as far as a property.
>> no, i did not is is that as a property line i'll take this as a compromise. >> so fine for the uphold the appeal or fine for the appellant with the condition that the property owner be able to do the expansion of the first floor. >> as per the plans. >> as per the plans which have been submitted. >> so those plans have not been submitted we need something that would be helpful if we could have that document submitted and i'd like to have the zoning administrator see if that rfbts what needs to be understood later which - >> so you're looking for plans for the ground floor.
yes. >> yes. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so i'll put on the overhead the proposal for the ground story stated by the permit holder they'll not expand to the floor above but the ground floor on the overhead close. >> so the doted line is the offer hang of the existing deck the variance holder indicated the wall will come out cross to the rear property line to the end of the deck and then extend over to the south side property line
and then the stairs will remain along the north side property line. >> because the plans that at this point have only been drawn up an escalation elevation and didn't show. >> do we have a date on that by chance. >> 11, 62016. >> is that elevation correct. >> you could move the wall further out. >> it is the north elevation so the wall will come out in line with the extent of the deck it is not something you'll see from this perspective because it will be hidden by the firewall that is for the stairs. >> but the plan you've showed us earlier indicates - >> this plan is the existing plan he's indicated the rear
wall didn't come out as far as the edge of the deck and they seek to bring this out further to the rear property line for a large space and bring it out over the facade they'll no longer do the stairs ♪ location but remained on the north side property line with the north elevation you'll not be able to see that increased area because it is good evening to be hidden behind this firewall here so that will be in a section in the middle of the building see it extend out further >> is that a variance. >> yes. it is modified but again this is a nov hearing. >> i understand but does that change our opinion. >> one of the concerns i have was that the you know kind of addressing the concerns rays by the neighbor to the west kind of
going towards the rear property line was a bit of an issue that's why we cut back at the upper levels but again, this is fully up to the board if you feel this is an appropriate solution. >> but not upper level. >> that addresses that concern. >> it seems the upper level will cause more interference in the sightlines between 9 neighbors. >> the bottom below grade level. >> it is a down sleep from broderick so, i mean this wall will be fully impose that's one of the concerns of the appellant to the west they've been mainly about bird levels and the sidelines to their rear yard. >> so this will bring the rear wall closer to their property and further exacerbate their
concerns. >> but under the existing deck. >> yes. and it will be reduced at the floor above not doing that expansion so trade offs there. >> okay. >> i think i'm satisfied thank you. >> i'll allow is this time please come to the podium please. you my understanding a firewall on the south side of the property when they expanded the building co-author to the original variance i'm wondering if they have to have a firewall if they build out the lower level in this case why not put the stairs next to that firewall in their building and just minimize the intrusion on the north side of the property.
>> okay. thank you. >> i think - part of what is driving this alternative is the presidio's is the picking up additional space on the empowering. >> - >> what he is losing on the second floor. >> how much space are we talking mr. sanchez i'm sorry. >> how much 6 inches? >> well be the square footage of that stair. >> so. >> the square footage the stairs with pivoting. >> no a new stair that is shown in the plans. >> but a replacement stair. >> no, it is being relocated not a replacement stair. >> sorry no talking.
>> according to the appellant would like to step up and clarify the permit holder would like to step forward and it will be a mirror. >> not a replacement stair once you take them out. >> in terms of what they're proposing an, an alternative it is essentially a reminded stair but original variance drawings shows a completely different stair in a new location. >> that's my understanding going back to the drawing the rear wall will move out towards the rear property line the dimension up here is probably 8 to 10 feet closer to the south side property line as is appellant noted on the current proposal a firewall their relocating the design so the stairs will no longer be there to the south side property line and 3 feet out further to the
rear end of the line of the existing deck and the stairs will be rebuilt with a required firewall bringing the existing conditions up to code. >> if we moved it to the south side since from the second floor you'll create the second situation to the neighbor on the south side coming from the level down; right? >> you're against a building on the south side. >> the building on the south side has a bit of a side setback and didn't have a deeper lot my understanding from the variance holder they have discussed this and the adjacent property was okay with that firewall in that proposed stairs in that location. >> please no talking. >> no appeals were filed i'll say that thank you.
>> so the point of that conversation is would you accept that drawing under the conditions of this motion. >> yes. i mean there is a trade off there i mean, my concern will be we asked them to setback the wall that's a concern of the appellant to the west but mr. lee removing that addition on the second floor and having the addition been indicated a more censorsy space densely used it acceptable but hopefully up to the boards. >> i have one question for the permit holder after we're done. >> oh - >> hold on i'll ask the permit holder a question. >> the stairs that are existing on the north side will be her south side which will be
where the light comes in on that does the property that is on your south side longer than and a setback back do those people are a problem with the firewall and the stairs. >> currently they don't no firewall there and the plans that were submitted this stairs don't come out into the yard their go back and forgot and takes away deck space. >> my thinking and this is a thought if you're on your south side it would will be on their north side not effecting their light and air or if you go on our north side their south side; right? >> but okay. that was my question. >> okay. thank you. >> so are we back to commissioner swig's motion then. >> yeah. we should resolve that if we can't we'll accept another
motion. >> i'm still concerned about how best to reflect the revision to the project if a way to go forward and looking to the zoning administrator for help with that. >> scott sanchez planning department. perhaps correction for the existing stair along the north side property line would allow for expansion of the ground floor under the area of the existing deck and but lieu for reconstruction of the deck above that level and i mean a necessary firewall i believe they're keeping the access the stairs on the south side? to connect to the two. >> levels because there's an
existing stair there now from the third floor down to the second floor. >> okay. >> and to remove - >> to remove the stair expansion of the second floor and third floor. >> what he said. >> so the motion then will be from commissioner swig to grant the appeal and uphold the surveillance on the condition that the zoning administrator just said all the elements remove the expansions of the rear floor and the expansion will be reconstructed to the existing north side i'm getting this right expansion the ground floor under the deck - under the existing deck reconstruction the existing deck above the
ground floor and any existing firewall. >> one minor thing that was about the expansion of the ground floor space up to the edge of the existing deck; right? >> i mean, if i board wants to have the variance holder to accept those conditions maybe ask those plans be drafted i don't know what the timeline is for the architect but that would be great to have them within the 10 days from the understanding of the proposal i don't know if so that doable for the architect timeframe but. >> the variance holders needing in agreemenodding in ag >> the boards decision is not effective until that period of time a good phase request by the
board. >> and this is to the variance will meet the 5 finding required under the planning code in particular i think the findings you're concerned about commissioner swig is number 4 which is at the variance will not be material detrimental to the public or the injury us to the property. >> on that commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> thank you and we'll move on to item no. 7 which is appeal thomas and eleanor versus the planning department with planning department approval on 33 avenue
protesting the issues of a site permit on august 2016 to vladimir with the external and adding two bedrooms and two bathrooms and new bathroom at second floor and new bathroom on third floor with family room and new roof deck. >> can we take one minute. >> thank you for the break welcome. >> welcome back to the wednesday, november 9, 2016, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we're on item 7 and we'll start with the appellant. >> good evening board members we are here tonight on regarding the granting of the permit for our new neighbors homes next door to us they're planning additions to each levels of their home as well as an
additional avenue fourth level not - existing right now we are amending our appeal to only deal with the addition of the fourth level we feel that the addition of that new level will cut off the sun. >> light to our kitchen and breakfast room and diagram that window faces to the south where the sun does come in since we've got in our home for 5 seven years that is a major change in addition to eating in the kitchen i use the breakfast room for reading watching television you go or, using the telephone and crafting mostly because of arthritis in my back i feel that it would be really difficult for us if they were to go ahead and
build this fourth level i'm asking the board to take into consideration thank you. >> thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> welcome. >> good evening my name is andrea one of the owners second owner any father but unfortunately has a hearing problem so i understand the main architectural problem is the access to scioto our dwelling i mean the stair between our houses
i understand i'm not an architect but the lightwell area where the stairs are located big enough and the planning department and has reviewed the project with the pleading and approved our addition we actually went back to with the architect and talked about this - so to be honest i don't know understand the think the problem was resolved and enough sunlight as k34u9 by the planning department now if we refer to the original brief of the appellant i'm not sure we can do that because they pushed all the arguments in
there as far as i see the only architectural argument is the sunlight and but otherwise they also mentioned the activity in the brief that is true in at least part of apartment on the second floor of the building has been rent and we have registered with the planning department, paying our taxes she should be added to the brief our certificate and business recommendation the apartment 656 on the second floor and i understand it is only being opted out by my family and never rented to airbnb services and it is we're not - >> there are 3 adults and a
dog there but in perverseable future hope it will be bigger only for our use we don't plan to rent it. >> this is temporary our house unfortunately is very difficult conditions i brought some photos that might be relevant to show - overhead please. overhead please. yep to show that the implicating we had to repair on the ground floor so the house is in a bad situation and wouldn't renting just difficult we had to replace half of the mr. flanagan on ground floor and also the
electrical system as well here this is temporary to roommate the house it just very hard to live there right now especially on the second floor which is has not been renovated in 34 years i believe i know if i should address yeah also so much dust and noise we were open to negotiations i'm sure if our permit gets approved - our construction country is ready to negotiate with our neighbors all of the neighbors with the hours and we are open to that and with regards to the parking this argument we believe can be
completely - to the case because mostly parking is airbnb that use preferablely public transportation but including by the neighbors i believe those are all the argument and open to questions. >> i have a question i live on that block during my college years how long have your folks lived on the property. >> in september 2nd years. >> and how many units are on the property circling. >> two 651 and 6. >> you don't have people on the property. >> what do you mean. >> are there rooms behind the garage. >> no, i believe they're
included in the phase two preempts. >> the other thing in plans in the briefs and so who's the contractor and the builders your father a contractor. >> no negotiating with the incarcerating. >> because the preliminary are owner builder. >> i'm sorry come again. >> it says you're the owner billiard. >> we hadn't signed with anyone yet. >> okay. that answers any question thank you. >> did you send out a 311 notice. >> i believe yes, in february. >> okay you have a copy of that. >> no, unfortunately no. >> we have no drawings nothing here. >> i'll rather looking at it in hardcopy but go ahead.
>> and on the 311 notification that was sent out did you hold neighborhood meetings. >> well, we were open to but haven't heard any complaints besides. >> normally when you send out 311 you're having a meeting if someone shows up that's good. >> i apologize this process has been very long we had one meeting back in i believe november or december 2014 and one neighbor attended. >> did they have questions at that time, and i believe their main concern was - >> did our plans vary from that evening. >> yes. as i said we without arithmetic we went back to changed them already. >> thank you.
>> mr. sanchez. >> the subject property on 33 avenue located an five and six zoning district that allows the two with the vertical expansion that is on the plans the overhead please. so the new story a 17 foot setback is prominently a block phase to allow the fourth story as long as it is setback they've done here it the have a residential design guidelines review and to notchback here at the rear to respect the adjacent property to the south that didn't extend as far as the the subject property the the subject property for that their vertical addition providing a full matching let that matches the appellants property it is fully code compliant and
notification done between january and february no discretionary review authorization a project requires the outreach meeting the staff says it occurred prior to moving forward with the application the application was submitted no prevail of 2015 so this is fully code compliant project the vertical addition adds the office study and two bedrooms the kitchen facility are maintained on the third floor and as part of developing rooms on the ground floor for the unit on the second floor the current plans says no habitable space on the ground level only storage they'll be developing that level as well were with exterior access sorry to interrupt.
>> yeah. the spiral staircase that does provide - some interior access but a full bath. >> i'm sorry you have a rear view. >> the rear view elevation. >> yes. >> thank you. >> on the overhead the proposed rear elevation. >> show me with the appellants property. >> here to the north. >> the plan the north arrow is drawn incredible but the appellants property is here and here's the proposed front elevation in this case the property is here to the north. >> so here's the one story vertical addition in those cases
you know - it is a very large lightwell their matching and i do think this r t requires that it is appreciated when you have a lightwell of almost 20 feet we wouldn't always require that be fully matched. >> it requires some light. >> exactly but that is such a substantial size that provides quite a bit of light and air open its own. >> but you know we would see this completely meets all the residential design guidelines. >> okay vice president do you mind if i ask to see the plans. >> not at all i have a couple of questions. >> i've got to hear the building permit and the residential design guidelines comments and our 311 itself. >> i have questions.
>> are you done. >> yes. i'm done thank you. >> the it also has a based the rh2 a pop up; right? >> yes. >> and the elevation looks like theirselves i thought the pop up that was loud for second floor. >> the vertical addition is an existing. >> the pop up is existing it shows a hatch. >> maybe new siding. >> you know that is like a new structure. >> okay. >> let's go back a ways. >> the richmond district had
had a lot of issues with four stories. >> uh-huh. >> in fact, our department was not approving four stories for quite a long time why the change. >> the adoption of the residential design guidelines which you know specifically contemplate where you have paramount 3 third floor pattern on the block phase the compromise was that essentially the setback was going to minimize that addition and have it blend more seemingly into the background and on the overhead aerial photos. >> perhaps you can discuss that with the context so i don't have to read the report. >> certainly that is prominently third floor and one to the north is a 4 story
building the building to the south is a tall third floor. >> i live in that building by the way. >> the other side prominently to more to the third floor and four story to the north and making up 2, 3 and 4 a little bit more punk what did on on the west side of the street on the the subject property of the street but have approximately a long tradition of approving an additional story when we have a setback in this case here. >> was there a richmond special. >> the year of construction. >> no. i don't think so.
>> the year of construction. >> it looks like it. >> like 193 have to look like 25. >> 1926 yeah. >> but looks like it had been remodeled at some point. >> no spark. >> on the overhead. >> are you done commissioner. >> the existing pop up that is just a mirror. >> i'm sorry where is the the subject property. >> it is the the subject property adjacent property here is the cones property identical condition to add a new fourth story setback 10 feet from the building wall. >> not the back that causes it will block out the sun coming in the morning from the pop up
right there. >> not buy out over the pop up but no further than the main - >> the fourth story won't have the pop up. >> it will be 9 deck on top of the pop up. >> okay. >> are you done commissioner fung. >> let me been that i don't understand the airbnb for short time but thought it rent-controlled can't be and/or before. >> the participate can be the requirement a preliminary rodent you don't represent out an entire unit it didn't allow you to do if you're the preliminary owner but limits that to 20 days for the entire unit while you're there in the unit you can rent
it out. >> you have to live in the unit while you, you are we talking about it out. >> that's part of requirement to show the evidence you're the preliminary resident of the unit. >> thank you. >> no, i'm fine. >> i'm comfortable. >> okay thank you. >> inspector duffy anything on this. >> as long as you came in. >> yeah. >> you're doing well inspector duffy. >> how are you. >> i joe duffy dbi i think that should be okay. it's a typical addition there was structural a
notification sent out by dbi when the permit was issued the comment the works hours we get a lot of complaints on those types of projects from the construction on a nicely kw50e9 block i appreciate the permit holder recognizing that and hopefully the project gets approved they'll get their project done without too much disturbance to the neighborhood i did read in the brief about a flashing water approving i encourage the permit holder to work with others flashing between the property not part of building code but as a good neighbor policy we encourage them to get that issue sorted out prior to construction starting so they can no surprise it is a pretty standard detail
that happens in the lot lines a story added to a building suddenly you'll have to flash up the new addition and we ask the property owners to sort that out themselves it is district attorney good thing to do other than i don't have anything else. >> that is the issue that the appellants brief that leaking rain. >> yeah. it roles up the side and the water goes on the roof. >> thank you this is a site permit. >> it is only a site permit but only a 150i9 permit maybe not set up the schedule but looks like it is only site. >> you notice it is an owner permit rights. >> yes. a lot of people do that they're not sure what they'll do when the new
contractor is on board they'll submit the license and workman's compensation to that prior to starting the work to get the incarcerating on the permit later. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you yes. >> a format i'll call for public comment. seeing none, search warrant a rebutt rebuttal. >> are you an appellant you have 3 minutes to as the appellant. >> welcome. >> my name is thomas wong i live next door you mentioned about the rain between the buildings if we put an additional floor on their does the rain will hit their wall and come over to our roof more than now because right now the roof is level both sides
and when they put the fourth floor we saw it didn't cover only on the living room side but the light is blocking on the lightwell area the kitchen and the breakfast area we get light but the sunshine is gone thank you. >> so i have a question sir, are you finished autopsy no, i finished yeah. >> so did you receive a notification from regarding a 311 notification to indicating our neighbors were going to have construction. >> yeah. he went to the first meeting and yep. >> yep. >> on the first meeting sorry i remember asking that from the first meeting did they make alterations all no, they doesn't. >> you addressed our concerns
regarding the light and air purpose not going to get. >> yes. yes. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal. >> i apologize i'm not entirely i don't know the whole process but i know we've changed our plans it happened almost too years ago we decided to make the fourth addition much, much shorter if you come from the backside we definitely did alteration and it was going to rain in the 21st century i i'm sure we have limits it didn't shooem seem like a big issue. >> are you done
so where your rear sunroom our planning on adding a deck what material are you thinking of using for railing. >> i believe that is wood but it is not - >> would you be open to putting potentially something more so through like glass or something. >> absolutely. >> okay. thank you. >> uh-huh. >> let's go back to what changes have occurred in that project. >> when you said the front setback that was required by the planning code. >> yep. >> right. >> your initials project drawings the fourth floor extend from where the front wall and i believe that went all the way. >> to the rear wall of the pop up. >> yes.
>> all right. >> so, now you cut it back from the front based on what planning wanted the 15 feet from the street side. >> uh-huh. >> now it goes to the main wall of the back in the the pop up wall that was done for what reason. >> yeah. i i'm not sure what - >> was that done because planning brought that up also. >> or the neighbors. >> scott sanchez planning department. so sounds like well in terms of the process when staff saw that i don't know when they first saw it but to the residential design the comments from the rehabilitation rehabilitation
/* residential design the 15 feet would have been taken off in response to staffs comments. >> either way and - they'll need a variance to do that i don't know if they came in with that staff said they need a variance or went i don't know if they ever covered that. >> from the get go. >> right that is code compliant. >> so the slot that was asked for by your staff on the south side. >> that was made yes definitely this can i have the overhead, please? can i have the overhead, please? >> this was definitely added after the r e t with the setback
on the front i don't know if that was made at what point but before the rdt. >> your residential design guidelines kaultdz railways for that. >> exactly. >> how about for the rear where's the rear yard setback line. >> there are in this case given the nature of the case they're able to avail the 45 percent. >> that's why your stopped short. >> exactly, exactly the building to the rear line in terms of the materials of the deck that they have at the rear on the plans they are they've highlighted that called the metal guardrail so certainly from the board wanted to specific small business owner something with a greater level
of transparency i understand that. >> can i after you're done can i see those plans again sorry. >> sure thing sharing is caring. >> what - where's that plan that he had - >> so this is the sun where that comes starts here and going this way with a large matching lightwell but by giving something here about increase more light and not that much loss here i don't know. >> you're the architect so if it didn't make a difference it
doesn't make sense. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez did you have any rebuttal. >> thank you so anything else mr. duffy commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think the the preliminin market i know in the richmond's there are fourth floors. >> but i also remember. >> don't date yourself. >> no, no i remember discussions that occurred and
people saying that the one project was probably the last fourth floor you know arched to brought in the richmond and i guess with the residential design guidelines probably changed a little bit but there was - in fact, one of the former supervisors lobbied heavily against fourth floors. >> you know. >> jake. >> yes. >> so i think the - for me looking at where whether i agree with the residential design team in their determination this is appropriately scaled for that neighborhood the other issues if the permit holder is adding a floor up, of
course, they have to come back with the appropriate flashing that deals with picture adjacent neighbors that is commonly done we'll ink expects that i agree with them they you know it is difficult to do construction without noise but perhaps they can arrive at suitable timeframes for the day not as with the building code allows that is almost the whole day and everyday of the week i mean the neighbors deserve some respite from noise you know and i don't know if we want to get into thinking about conditions in that respect. >> i think that so you're thinking about approving or denying the appeal is that what you're leon towards. >> this point in time. >> probably. >> and i don't mind
conditioning the construction hours it is set in stone with no ordinances and that way no problems. >> that protects the appellant. >> can i have the appellants come to the podium please. so folks i'm sure you're not going to want to hear but we're leon towards approving that project you asked for limited construction times no >> so you don't mind them working from morning to nights. >> we do. >> what hours when you limit construction hours you have to remember instead of them doing
it quickly it takes more time the shorter the more it takes them to complete the process what do you think that fair that is a question at this point. >> 8 to 5. >> 8 to 6, 8 to 5. >> 5 days a week. >> 8 to 5 no saturday or sunday or holidays. >> okay. okay. >> that was a question okay. thank you. >> what about the sunshine definitely block the sunshine especially in the summer. >> that the code compliant they're not asking for anything special this is what is allowed by the city and county of san francisco unfortunately, the laws have changed over time. >> can you require the flashing. >> oh, yeah, the flashing is definitely definitely definitely
done okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> can i have the permit holder step forward please. they're requesting we'll probably put limitations what do you feel in regards to the 9 to 5 no saturday or sunday. >> i believe so we don't have construction people here to ask you it. >> once we set it in stone. >> anyone have any questions. >> okay. thank you. >> so we'll have to accept the appeal and condition it. >> i'll let you do that. >> okay. yeah. >> grant the appeal and grant the restricted work hours 9 to 5, 5 days a week monday through friday. >> thank you. >> the permit holder to handle the flashing of the structures.
>> that last part about the flashing i'm sorry. >> the permit holder to handle the flashing in an appropriate fashion. >> for the permit holder. >> i guess as an enforcement mechanism appropriate fashion is not something that. >> i think. >> do you want to leave it to the department of building inspection. >> not a code requirement and i see. >> so i guess normally we'll - >> how about this do to others as you would to, huh? the flashing to restrict additional water rain wart flow into the appellants property. >> my problem is if would be - >> yeah. >> that will not work. >> intruchl.
>> perhaps inspector duffy can help with the language. >> we whatever this is not a building code so we count the building code to connect the guess so together but flashing detail is something that a roofing contractor provides for the satisfaction of the property owners and they can come to an agreement on that in a civil manner in a civil - >> how will we. >> my problem we have to articulate a decision that is enforceable so unless there are drawings or specifications or something else i don't know how we can hither. >> with the additional flashing to the satisfaction of the appellant. >> houses that. >> it's my motion okay. >> i don't want to go b there.
>> maybe better to leave off the flashing if it becomes an issue contact dbi we have nice ways of encouraging the permit holder and contractor to take care of that. >> i'm sorry a little bit of flashing is not a big deal. >> i agree and so the motion if commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal on the conditions that the hours of operation from 9 to 5 monday through friday on the basis that the permit is code compliant. >> on that motion commissioner fung and commissioner president honda commissioner swig percentage okay. thank you very much so that motion passed its and commissioners one other item. >> this evening item 8 which is the discussion and discussion and possible action regarding the use of yellow commercial parking don or zone you may
recall a memo was given to you a few weeks back with information about the law around the use of yellow zones by mobile food facilities and additional information with conversations with the public works and there was interest amongst the commissioners to have discussion that's why this is on our calendar this evening. >> since i made the request i think it is important that the law according to the mp a is upheld which is yellow zones are for short time parking and the loading and unloading of things from trucks or cars or whatever their unloading once you muddy
the waters and have those that are above the law or below the law in our point of view it is arbitrary and dangerous. >> are you sorry to interrupt are you talking about going forward or rooeflt to the permit issued already. >> i think absolutely going forward that there should be a clear message which is offered to those seeking food truck permit including a yellow zone trying to do it retroactively i don't think is fair and a burden and a hardship to those who have already been offered permits. >> i think the departments impasse after the recommendations have generally i mean worked with us and so they'll not be issuing permits
for yellow zone facility and not even bring that forward. >> exactly. >> so what's the proposed action. >> so the proposed action to suggest - who issues the - >> public works. >> so the proposed action to request public works to uphold the mta's yellow zone laws and by not issuing permits to - by informing the applicants that permits in yellow zones are not available. >> or the way not issuing the permits where. >> i'm trying to prevent we're misleading the public by getting them to. >> thinking they might get a permit before a permit is issued
they should to the public for food trucks will not be issued ever. >> i believe although the directors research into it indicates that that is not definitely in their code didn't that is a a request they consider they made a distinctive element. >> mta replied but by the exempt from that food trucks are exempt but sfmta never made that policy. >> correct. >> as far as a recommendation. >> as far as a recommendation. >> i mean to me that feels like it is between mta and dpw and i'm not sure i want to
insert myself. >> why not make a recommendation going forward someone is not appealing the denial of a permit. >> i understand the recommendations but didn't this have to be worked between the two departments. >> the alternative is we encourage we send a memo to both mta and dpw and indicating that there are continued issues regarding the issuance of permits for food trucks in yellow zones the law seems to indicate that yellow zones with without exemption or for the use of loading and unloading for a short time but yet mta sorry dwp has made a request of mta for a waiver on this or an exception for food trucks we'd like absolute clarification on the
subject going forward how about that. >> or vote our conscious and deny any food trucks into the parking zone. >> or uphold the law that means we will not accept - that's fine i think - the food trucks not permitting them in yellow zones. >> by us having the conversation they'll understand the situation. >> i don't know if i want to go there what if someone wants to serve a midnight crowd entertainment venue and the food truck wants to be there the yellow zone it is for the operateable i mean, i don't know. >> we can qualify it. >> but at this point the yellow zone the laws and the rules change in the yellow zone according to the laws after 6 o'clock a yellow zone is open
for doishgs so the law changes on that. >> i thought we turned one down that was an evening. >> he wanted 4 o'clock to 8 o'clock. >> i don't think we can make to 6. >> we talked about that. >> we rejected that we rejected it and said not enough time. >> we're fine i mean unless someone throws monopoly. >> basically we will request upholding the law but if dpw wishes to go forward with mta please do so but bottom line clarify yes or no exception or no, that will come from - >> i'm with commissioner lazarus i think that is a leap i don't want to take right now i think they pretty much get the
message and going forward they will. >> are you clear on the subject. >> i'm not clear on what the motion is. >> the motion is to advise dpw and mta that we have - we would like to uphold the law an yellow zones they're available for temporary loading and unloading of the materials however - and in that we would like to be assured that dpw is informing the public before the issuance of a permit. >> before you go further you might want to check to see if you have the support to make that motion.
>> what would something else like to do. >> i'm okay with a letter to ask the departments to work together beyond that i don't want to go further we're stepping into the bounds. >> i wasn't going to go there. >> you talked about enforcing the law the issue is lack of clarity between the two departments if this is what we want to try to establish that's fine. >> we have found for cases based on the existing law which is only temporary parking loading and unloading and . >> we didn't issue a permit. >> and we didn't issue a permit as a result so protect the public we would like dpw to get clarification from mta on
that. >> so. >> on that direction so that the public is not mislead when they come to apply for a permit which includes a yellow zone how about that that handles what you need commissioner. >> just to get the two departments that's fine. >> that's it that's it. >> the motion to have the board send a letter to public works and mta noting that there seems to be a conflict in the interpretation of the laws under the use of yellow zones and requesting that they work to clarify that law so in the future permit blnts for mobile food facilities looking to operating in yellow zones understand that law. >> that is such a good motion. >> such a good motion thank you. >> any public comment on that
motion no public comment on that motion from commissioner swig to have the board send a letter commissioner fung. >> commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner wilson that motion carries. >> there's no further business. >> . >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco planning
commission and recreation and park commission special hearing for thursday, november 10, 2016. i'd like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburst of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you'd care to do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. commission president fong, here. commissionment richards, here. commissioner coffle, here. commissioner moore, here. >> now for the recreation and park commission, commissioner buel, here. commissioner anderson, here. commissioner harrison. here. both commissioner board of education &erson have excused absences. >> commissioners, under your special calendar, please note the joint commissions will hold
one public hearing for the public to provide testimony on all of the items listed below. following the public hearing the recreation and parlg commission the act jointly with the joint to consider raising the shad did he and adopt findings under the california environmental quality act and will consider making recommendations to the possible adverse effects of shadow. following that the recreation and park commission will adjourn and planning will remain in session and consider action on all other entitlements. item 1a, b, c and 20 for 2013.1377k, and x at 345 6th street, discussion and possible joint action by the planning commission and
recreation and park commission to raise the cumulative shadow for jean fran park to adopt a resolution to recommend to the planning commission that the shadow cast by the proposed project at 345 6th street will not have an adverse effect on shadow for the center, then the planning commission will consider adoption of findings as well as a large project authorization. >> thank you, john ram, planning department. i wanted to reintroduce to you a former planner who has returned to the planning department after many years ago, daniel seria with 17 years of experience in north america and the middle east, early in his career daniel worked in redevelopment planning in skautsz dail, arizona and on the willamette
river in portland and went on to vancouver where he worked for the both the city and the uefrtd of british columbia, then moved on to become an urban planner in qat a. r in the middle east and a number of efforts there and he also sat on the architectural design xlit responsible for approvals on major projects there. he holds a master's in you are be ban planning, a bachelor of arts in sociology from the university of ottawa and we welcome him back after a many year absence to the department. >> thanks for that intro duex, john, i appreciate that. >> pleasure. >> good morning, commissioners, i'm dan sua from the planning department staff. i'm joined by jordan harris from the recreation and park department, as well as erica jackson, our shadow specialist at the planning department. the project before you is a request fer a large project authorization for a new mixed use building at 345 shad did he
impacts will be provided by jordan harrison. please note the materials passed out to you today include amendments to the recreation and park and planning commission resolution so that they are talking to each other, the record meetings, the findings. also include nd this packet is the final shadow memo that makes corrections to the project description and some report language. the shadow study findings remain the same. the proposed project includes the demolition of the existing
single story parking garage structure and the construction of a 9 story, 85 foot tall residential building with 102 sro dwelling units. there's approximately 1700 square feet of ground floor commercial space, there's 102 class 1 bicycle spaces and 7 class 2 bicycle spaces. under the large project authorization the proposal is seeking exceptions to the planning code requirements for rear yard under section 134, permitted obstructions under streets under section 136 and dwelling unit exposure under section 140.. project has elected the on site affordable housing alternative in section 4.913. the project contains 102 sro dwelling units and will
include 14 affordable units on site which will be for rent. the project has entered into a cost of hawkins agreement with the city. in compliance with ordinance 1715 the entertainment commission held a hearing for this project and proposed conditions of approval for the project. the entertainment commission requests the commission adopt those conditions which have been reviewed and accepted by the project sponsor. those conditions are in the materials passed out to you today. the department has received two letters in opposition to the project and one letter supporting the project signed by united plaez, the west philipino center, the philipino american development foundation. after studying all the aspects of the project of the department recommends approvals with conditions, specifically the project is in
general conformance with the planning code, the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, the project is located in the zoning district where residential and ground floor commercial uses are principallily permitted and encouraged. it includes 102 sro units and ground floor retail. the project is consistent with and respects the existing neighborhood character and provides an appropriate massing and scale for the large parcel. the project will fully utilize eastern area plan controls and will pay the appropriate impact fees. this concludes my presentation and i will be available for questions. >> okay, opening up to public comment -- i'm sorry, project sponsor? >> we also need to hear, i believe, from rec park staff.
>> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is jordan harrison, i'm with the recreation and parks department. with my presentation i will walk through the shadow impacts from 345 6th street on to the jean frand recreation property. as you are aware, with the voter approved sunlight ordinance, section 295 requires specific findings related to shadow and rec park properties, memorandum adopted jointly by the two commissions provides guidance on how to assess that shadow. with existing shadow greater than 20 percent of the year, jean frand has an annual limit of zero percent. do you ever the presentation in front of you?
>> no. >> this map provides the position relative to two properties. the shadow analysis determined there would be no project shadow on vmd because the buildings between the project and vmd intercept the shadow, so my presentation will focus only on jean frand, which features a grassy area and playground. this hard to read slide is an illustration of the preliminary park layout that the department is working on. we're in the process of redesigning the jean frand property. this layout was presented to the specific design review committee and the eastern cac in december 2015. this is not an adopted concept
plan and is being provided to you only for information purposes. the preliminary design is currently in development. we are currently working on a feasibility study and features may shift. you can see the proposal moves the rec building corner to the corner of 6th and folsom to activate that corner. this image is the largest shadow, largest project shadow. it would occur on march 8 and october 4th around 8:00 to 10:00 in the morning. the greatest shadow impacts occur in the mornings in the early spring and fall. and this animation illustrates the shadow crossing the park property. and as you can see, it leaves the property just before 9:00. it shades the entry areas,
grassy area and playground portions of the play ground. this animation for informational purposes is the proposed park layout that i mentioned, is subject to change but as you can see the building being moved forward to the corner of folsom and 6th intercepts some of the project's shadow. this table provides a summary of the shadow impact on to the park property. the shadows occur in the mornings in the spring and fall and parts of the window. on days with new shadow the range is from just over 4 minutes to just under 30 minutes. the shadows fall on the northwest corner of the property where the grassy area and pathways are currently located and the shadow leaves the property before 9 am which is when the property currently
opens. the 1989 memo provides guidance on how to assess shadows for the purpose and acl of zero percent, annual cumulative limit was established for jean frand the property would introduce an additional 0.39 of shadow annually which would increase the shadow load for the park to 47.66 for the year. fear this reason the joint action by the commissions is necessary. so in addition the commission likes to consider cumulative projects within the vicinity of the park, so this map illustrates other projects in the vicinity that have the potential to shade jean frand one of the properties immediately adjacent to the subject property, which is 363, is the yellow property there.
363 was approved by this commission last fall and the one just south of that, 988 harrison, wouldn't reach jean friend. this hard to read table provides you the numeric summary of the shadow impacts based on preliminary analysis of those project site illustrated in that last map. these are all preliminary assessments the design of these buildings is still underway so these could change, but we would like to provide you this information, the best that we have right now. cumulative these projects could increase the shadow load on jean friend by 1.3 percent, but as i mentioned, these are preliminary designs. the number would probably be lower because those shadows may intercept one another but it's too early to say right now. finally, the sponsor will speak to this more, but to summarize community outreach and benefits for the project, the sponsor facilitated 11 meetings for local stake holder
groups and letters of support and opposition were received by the departments and included in your packets. as explained, the project will provide 14 affordable units as well as pay required impact fees and make required improved. this concludes my presentation, i am available with planning staff to answer any questions you may have. >> can you pass that around, your presentation so we can see what you are referring to? >> which. >> your presentation. >> i had a hard time following. maybe in the future we can get a copy of the presentations. thank you. >> okay, project sponsor, please. >> good morning, commissioner,
joseph thompson. on behalf of sponsor we would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this project. i would like to extend our gratitude to the planning department and various neighborhood organizations that have helped us refine our project. this will result in practical housing replete with commercial housing space that will activate this corridor and add to our market in affordable housing. morover it will be hoer sdaupblgtsly aligned with projects on 6th and folsom street. we will now provide a summary of the project at 345 6th street. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, this is red (inaudible) consults. also i would like to thank you for taking the time to hear our case. i would like to make it quick,
as they say. i'm going to point out why this project we feel that it fits within the neighborhood properly and it helps the street expanse and how does it fit into the block. if i may have the overhead, this building is 345 6th street as we are proposing. next door is the project, also a 9 story building with ground floor commercial. and you see the rest of the block as we go down shiply street. the way the building is
designed, is that we have matched the neighbors' rear yard. at this point there is no open space, there is no pattern of midblock open space due to the building that is sitting on both our lot and the neighboring lot. and what we are proposing is just like the neighbors' property you guys approved last year, we are proposing a 25 foot setback to their property line totals to 50 feet, which creates an open space that will benefit the rest of the homes, you know, down the block. in addition, on the ground floor also to give you orientation we have 6th street on one side and shiply going down the street. so again we have carefully designed, you
know, this layout so that we have a generous commercial space with approximately 19 foot ceiling which makes a great inviting commercial space that is nonexistent at this point. and as we go down shiply street, which we're getting to more residential block face, you know, we have provided the residential entrance and 4 residential units at the back of the sidewalks. so one thing i want to point out about this project and some of the concerns that i may say, the only concern that we have heard face to face with the neighborhood was that during these meetings that we held at the site, the neighbors came and they thought this was group housing with one kitchen in every level and more of a transient housing and made everybody nervous. so we explained to them that, you
know, this is in fact a studio units. they are rentals and they have the kitchen in the units. they have high ceilings by virtue of the concrete construction that we are proposing, which allows for a 7-inch thickness of the floors. at ground floor we are providing 8 foot, 11 inches of ceiling height which is not -- which is more generous than most of the units that you see in town at 8 feet or even less in some areas. and on the upper floors we have 8 foot, 8 inch ceiling so by virtue of the ceiling height and fenestration if you look at the elevations we feel that there's a lot of volume, there's a lot of light coming into these units and by far they are not a
cramped unit, cramped, dark units. this is a building that is going to be keeping a family for a very long time, our office is a few blocks from there, it's personal to us, we manage the units ourselves and we design the project and engineer the projects and when we are through we manage the construction. so we are proud of that, we want to make sure that the residents are comfortable in the units and we are not jamming units into this building. in addition the other aspect of this building that is rather abnormal to most of the projectness this town is in 9 floors of occupancy we have 6 levels of decks. so the occupants would have a choice to, they don't have to go all the way to the 9th floor roof deck to be able to get fresh air and light, we are providing
various decks, whether private or common, for the enjoyment of the tenants and we feel that it's got to be a good building and it's got to be comfortable to live in. in addition, one thing that i would like you guys to also look at, we added an alternate floor plan for the ground floor. under 8th floor we lost one unit as a result of putting a community room on the 8th floor. we were hoping to see whether you would be acceptable to the commissioners if we are to reduce our ground floor footprint and provide a veer yard at grade somewhat such as the adjacent building has and to be able to provide a generous ground floor community room which could, you know, upper floor, community room was about 12 feet wide. here we
could provide 25 by 25 or even larger, you know, at the ground floor openings into a ground floor garden. that concludes my presentation. i have mr. brad terrell who did a great job with the facade, he's going to talk about the architecture of the building. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is brad terrel, i'm the design lead for the team. i'm really pleased to introduce the project and draw a little closer to the design that's been in development for over 3 years. from a distance, the building is composed of a simple cubic volume atop a glass podium at 6th street. complementing this volume is a 4 story expression that's organized with garden units, projecting bays and terraces fronting on to shiply street. this is important to note given the orientation of
the building. it fronts a very busy primary street and then also fronts a very intimate secondary alley this is something we've taken into account both in the planning of the ground floor floor and as much as the elevation can express. along the shiply alleyway the street wall is set back to provide more face at ground and this was important we felt to make the street more inviting and to align with some of our adjacent contexts that we have. looking closer at the primary mapping again at the corner the volume is further differentiates by the horizontal structure that we have, as rachel mentioned. these bands of horizontal structure are further expressed by alternating bands of fenestration and that fenestration is composed of both solid and void with fiber cement panels and glazing floor
to ceiling stretching from slab to slab. this pattern is solid, it's accentuated by these projecting bays, these projecting slab edges, raert, that provide shadows and further invigorate the elevation with direction be it the morning or afternoon where the shad did hes and light are coming from. with that said, we've invested a good bit of time and interest into the materials and the relief on the building and that's something i feel we want to draw attention to. thank you. >> that is it from project sponsor, opening it up to public comment. >> good morning, commissioners, president fong, good morning to the new commissioners. cunningham.
my name is rudy corpus, i'm the executive director of violence prevention program called united players that's housed in the south of market. i'm also a resident of south of market, born and raised. i'm here to support the project. i'm here because we have met with some of the developers and, you know, made agreements upon what would be best for the community, for organizations and also what's best for the community. it's very rewarding when you can meet developers in a community that wants to meet with the community and wants to build with the community. i don't think they're just, like, developers that just came and build something, make some money and get on. they are here also as a community partner and to me that's more important than anything that we can get is building a relationship. our motto is it takes a hood to save a hood and now they are in the community with us and they've been in the community with us, it's time
that we start building these bridges, not these walls, in particular in the district we're in, in district 6 south of market. i'm here to support these guys in full and say let's move forward the project and thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is bernadette sea, i'm the director of the philipino development corporation and also the project sponsor for the philipino district. the project sponsor has offered to support our community. one of the things we are requesting from the project is also to provide affordable commercial space. as we build out our philipino small business district in south of market it's really imperative that we try to retain a lot of our business that is already here. we know
there's (inaudible) that's been here 15 years and their family is about to be displaced. the project sponsor has offered to provide the low market rate in its commercial space. for that we are supporting the project. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is luisa antonio and i am the director of the veteran's equity center. i want to echo bernadette's comments about the developer's support for our community. as a worker in the south of market for the last 25 years and have been working with a lot of philipino families, what we have seen is small businesses that are providing the services for the philipino families have gone and there's an asian market in fact on mission
street that is getting displaced. and one of the things that we appreciate about the developer is coming to our community and making a xhisment to help us preserve the small businesses and support for alvia march's office space for the small businesses and it is really important that we have it as we are working on making sure that we have a thriving philipino community in the south of market. it's important to have philipino businesses that are serving the community. thank you. >> okay, any additional public
comment? >> i'm not going to speak on shadows. this is a map the mraplt gives out when they have ppa's to this site and it shows this site is full. it's a map the planning department gives out on all ppa's. i didn't understand the qualifications of the person who spoke as the designer. is he an engineer? what kind of an engineer? what kind of analysis was done of the structural structure of this building in light of the soils they are on? i've been dealing with projects back to the 90's on soft soils in this area of
south of market. there was enormous disruption in lola prieta we now are having hearings on soils and south of market the board of supervisors downtown. what qualifications underlie the plans engineering wise becauseengineering plans affect the architecture. they have to have real implications for the structure part of the plan. so i have separate questions on the shadows but i am very concerned about the soils so i refer to you to map the planning department's map, it's california seismic hazard zone official map, november 17, 2000. it's a real map. it was given to this developer when they did a ppa, so please
credentialize your plans and the person who spoke. thank you. >> tom gilberti on shadows. is it possible to do a tiered set back upper levels, minimal loss of apartments, of housing rooms? but they may add a little bit more slant, less shadow? better -- i like a tiered building much better than a box. next issue, roof top garden. i came here today to speak to the combined commissions and if
anything is above 9 stories a roof top garden gets to be a windy effect. but a roof top garden is one way for people that live in a building to meet each other in a noncommercial space. they are not being sold. and i'm sorry i don't know all the facts here, do they have a roof top garden here planned? those are the only two issues that i am concerned about. again, on shadow, the tiered upper level set back, that can work. thank you. >>. >> thank you, commissioners, welcome to the new members. we are the members of prozak, the
park and rec. i would echo the person who spoke before me, we are concerned in general about shadowing any of our parks. you know, we all know about the city ordinance that forbids shadowing of the parks. we have so little open space as it is in our district that the precious bit that we have we would like to preserve the sunlight. so if there is any way in a planning or architectural sense that that could be avoided, we would like to have that considered. we would also like to see if there's a way that the green space that is being suggested would be able to be open to the public. we have popo's all over our district, most of them are unusable, they are not accessible to the public even though they have a small sign that says that they are, and once again to reiterate there is so little open space in our
district that we would like to see if that can be accessible to everyone. the last question we have is the distinction at planning between an sro and a studio. so we heard each unit would have a kitchen, but does each unit have a bathroom or are they shared bathrooms? that would make a difference in terms of family usage of the units and we would just like to have that clarified. so as the last thing i would like to make is a sort of addition to that we live in both soma and the tender loin and our neighborhood is becoming denser by the day. there are over 10,000 new units either in the pipeline or already open in our immediate neighborhood in the sort of mid-market, central market district and there is so little open space for the families that are being built for. so on the one hand to park and rec we really thank you for
approving the proposed acquisition on 11th street, we are very excited about that and that will be really an addition for us. but our concern is it won't be available to us until at the least 2024, which doesn't do a single thing for all of the 10,000 new units and the rest of the people that live there. so we would like to ask you to reconsider this second proposed acquisition in the neighborhood. park and rec has already done all the research for it. prozak passed resolutions supporting both of them, we don't see this as an either/or proposition, we'd like to have you reconsider acquiring both. thank you all very much. >> okay, is there any additional public comment? okay, not seeing any, public comment is closed and opening up to both commission
commissioners. commissioner moore. >> speaking on the context of our joint discussion, i want to briefly say i find the building to be interesting in response to the challenges the site poses, opening up to a broader mid-block open space is a very good idea, stepping the building is a very good idea because it will indeed deemphasize the impact on a smaller residential community to the north/northwest, but i have one question and one i would like to explore in front of you together with mr. suka because i had to place a call to the planning department with respect to one particular aspect of the project where i don't quite think we are meeting the general requirement that this commission upholds when it comes to ground floor units. mr. suka, would you mind engaging with me in a conversation? typically when it comes to alleys anywhere, be that on
stevenson, be that on (inaudible) valley, wherever a strong residential set of guidelines which deals with a privacy issue, four units which you enter off an alley into the unit and come not guilty level is just not assuring the privacy we're looking for because you would have to have your shades drawn all day in order to have privacy. we are not living in holland where everybody just doesn't look into each others units and shades are not the rule. here it is and because we have studio units, which are well sized yet they are only studios, we do not have much space to distinguish between the more private parts of our -- between the private zones in our units versus other rooms which are for the bath. these units are compliant units
relative to bedroom units, however they need to be raised 3 feet above the sidewalk in order to have the privacy we are looking for. i placed a call and mr. suka, if you want to pick up where i'm leaving off here, perhaps you could fill us in. >> rick suka, staff. mr. moore is referring to our ground floor guidelines. typically we like to have units along the street to help activate the area. typically we look at the overall benefit of the project, the specifics of the street and the overall development. the raising and introduction of stoops is a pretty common method that we will look at. in this instance we have the architect had originally proposed a kind of forecourt like private entry way into that provided a buffer to the street and then to the unit, which we didn't find very
favorable considering the kind of shade that it would cast on the street and given the constraints of the overall height it wasn't -- we were, we found the current design acceptable relative to that. however, commissioner moore is correct in the sense that this isn't typical of our ground floor residential dwelling guidelines. >> i want to take it away and you can look at the pictures of very well-developed document done in 2011 by the department, very much guidance to rules we have enforced pretty much all along, including the more recent ones throughout the city. as we are starting to discover the importance of our alley's as a new neighborhood street, i believe this project would greatly fail by not realizing the step up, what it would require is adjusting the yofr all volume metric parts of the lower piece and the upper
piece by potentially dropping a floor. i am not as much concerned about the unit yield as i am interested in the overall proper functioning of those units which we're bringing to market today. it's not for me between one and the other, new mayorally one is better, the department's guidelines is very persuasive. i am sending out the pick taur to do it correctly, which means let's lift the ground floor but in order to stay with the height limit we may have to drop an additional floor which would help us with potentially lessening any residual impact we have on parks, which meets the larger objective of protecting our parks when it comes to the public interests which in this particular neighborhood is praitd by the
fact some of the newer parks only will come in 2024, as the group just said. nobody loses, i think the developer will have a good building but there needs to be a couple adjustments for the project to fly. >> xlir low. >> jordan, can you talk to us about the proposed development of jean friend rec center. you mentioned you're bringing the building closer to foal come street but what's the intended use there? >> the objectives of the redesign process were to increase the amount of basketball space on the interior of the building and maintain the existing programs which is an exercise room, basketball and multi purpose room. the new building will be two stories so we are achieving some of those goals by using
upstairs and in terms of moving it forward the purpose of that was to improve the activation of that corner, having it recessed makes it a little less activity. >> are we talking outdoor space or indoor space? >> indoor space, the building slides forward. >> so the proposed shadow would hit the building, not necessarily basketball courts. >> correct. >> the proposed redevelopment plan, the shadow would hit a building first as active outdoor space. >> yes, most of the shadow would. do you have any further questions about that? >> no. >> commissioner harrison. >> you are not -- who's here? >> i was misadvised. commissioner richards.
>> staff, if you may one more time, please, on the shadow, the park plan. maybe in the future if we could have a copy of this. >> yeah, we didn't realize that that was -- i appall wriez -- apologize for that. >> what's currently in our packet looks at the current site. on the current site we have the time of the day, the duration and what it actually hits, right? and it didn't mention anything about a play ground but on the new conceptual site that has yet to be adopted or even voted on, whatever, it seems like there is a longer duration than i've read in the packet on certain times of the day as well as it hits a playground? where are we today and where are we dwoiing tomorrow and where does the shadow actually does hit? >> where we are today is the shadow hits the front quarter of the property which is mostly grassy area and a bit of playground.
>> this here? >> yes. >> so the building is in the back. >> the building is about 50 feet back from the intersection. >> and the new proposal would be to build a building that is larger? >> on that proposal on the very back of the property, where your finger is now, that is an outdoor basketball court. >> okay. >> and at the corner of folsom and 6th is the building. >> right here, uh-huh, where no building is today. >> right, where no building is today and then the grassy area, entry area, and to the left is the current play ground. so the shadow sort of diagonally crosses the property, hits the edge of the playground and the grassy area and the entry way. exactly where your fickle are are. >> in the future it's going to hit the building and the cafe is like a carousel cafe? >> let me reiterate, that is
potential -- turn it over to --. >> commissioner, fill ginsberg, rec and park. jordan is correct in that that is still in the design phase. this is a partnership with the partnership for public land. the goal is to add capacity in the site because of increased density in the area and as the prozac members noted. the cafe is tentative. we are doing the possibility of including an indoor pool in the space. the closest public pool in the south of market area is actualliality garfield so in partnership discussion with community members we wanted to take a look at that. the cafe element is sort of an optional element, it is in the design that you have. i think this design is going to move a little bit but i think our
intent, the project intent, is to activate what is the southeast corner of the property with building, because right now the frontage of the building is only on 6th street. under any scenario we want to move a larger building forward to the corner of 6th and folsom. as jordan noted there will be a second floor and there will be additional program space. how that program space ends up being carved up will depend on the feasibility of a swimming pool. >> so there's a play ground for the children and proposed there isn't any? >> there will probably be 1, it just hasn't been decided where. >> for the purposes of our decision today we need to look at the current situation. >> you need to look at the current design that's on site there. i think there's a little bit of quaul litative
image. it is likely some of the shadow will end up falling on structure, a significant amount of shadow. >> while you are speaking, if you may, i think i asked this question before, are there any plans to expand programming before 9 am? >> i remember that. i remember that. i wish i had actually done something about it since the last time you asked. right now the facility operates close to, is it 9 or 10 hours a way. -- a day. we do have robust programming. san francisco voters just passed proposition d which gives us a little bit more wiggle room and we are in the process of actually having a look at all our program and program hours and i still have something that i need to get back to you about. >> are there any other current
parks in district 6 that are open before 9:00? >> don't forget, this is a structure. this is a rec center and not a park. victoria, mineol graves, most of our parks are operating at 6 klpl am and midnight. for example victoria mineola graves is open early, south park is or will be open earth. we have a number of parks that are actually within a 5-minute walk of jean friend rec center in the tender loin, we have 17th and folsom which i'm proud will be opening in january, i believe. >> so there are patrons that use this as a park, for purposes of people's programming they can lay on the grass. >> it's possible the new design would allow us to think differently about the operating hours. right now with the old
design, as you know, there's kind of a weird fenced-in structure and having the building open and eyes on the back yard, eyes on the open space, has been important. but with the new design that's something that we can certainly take a look at. our goal is to have both our buildings and our parks open as much hours a day, as many days a week, as many weeks a year as we can possibly program. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i am highly supportive of this project, i think it's great. we've talked about the need for sro's and sort of where they fit in our parket when we also have similar discussions about larger size be units and i personally feel like this is a great project because sro's are the entry way for a lot of people into the city and it's also great housing stock for a lot of our pop place. so i think it's great. commissioner moore brought up
something i had been thinking about, i hadn't thought about too much, but i totally agree on her comments about ground floor. i was recently walking around my neighborhood in mission bay where many of the apartment buildings do you have ground floors, you have blocks and blocks of buildings that have ground floor apartments and the shades are down on all of them. in some ways it's no different than when we questioned the wisdom of having ground floor parking podiums where you are looking at a blank wall. i think it's worthwhile to look at options around that, whether it's raising the building so that you have the front door, even if you don't have an extented foop area, you have the front door above the main sidewalk area or if we need to look at permitted ub strutions and see if that should include some further obstructioning, something in front of the doors of the apartments. in order to have eyes on the street, people need to feel like they are not
on a zoo and i think that's something we should be thinking about. before you hear rich, because i know you have something to say -- something smart, the one thing i agree with commissioner moore, whatever we come up with, especially if it involves raising the building, something like that, i am not interested in decreasing the number of units. we'll have to see how that works out with the site direction but that's not something i want to go in. >> in talking to the architect it sounds like they can accommodate a kind of raised open area on the ground floor, kind of back to what we originally looked at. you would see street, a kind of raised, open area used for private open space, and then the unit which was basically harkening back to an earlier scheme that we had looked at.
the architect mepbsed they can basically get, there is additional height on the nroupbd floor so we are still within our minimum tolerances for ground floor ceiling height but still accommodating, he mentioned we likely cannot accommodate a 3 foot but anywhere between 7 and 14 inches, basically about two steps up above the public right of way so you git a little bit of separation from street and open space, basically. >> if i may, thank you for hearing me again. at this point we have a 7 inch step up into the building and we have ceiling heights, you know, varying from 8 foot 11 inches to 8 foot 8 inches so if we have to hypothetically reduce the ceiling height to 8 foot 6, which is still rather generous, then we could raise the building, raise the ground floor by an additional 12
inches because raising the look of the building. it would be 18 to 20 inches of raised stoop that we could accommodate without loss of square -- any units. >> i'd like to hear other comments on that. i mean i think if there's any way we can -- i mean i don't want to diminish the living quality of the units, they are already smaller in size and i do think that that sort of what would be created with that open space would be used by those units because they are not that big. okay, we consider things like stepping up and then stopping down into the units so you are not decreasing your ceiling height, is it more about increasing physical barrier between the private space and the public space of the sidewalk with screens or awnings, i'm thinking out of the box here and that's one reason why i want to bring it up because i have residential
ground floor guidelines, i found them online. i think there's more we can do with that but generally speaking i like the project. in terms of the jean friend rec center i think it's fantastic we are looking at updates for that center, i see a lot of people playing basketball on the folsom street side well swoot neighborhood so it is well used by the neighborhood. commissioner rich are erd's question if there is a feasibility study around pools that would certainly change the hours because pools tend to open at 5:00 in the morning. still a little more we can do around some certainty how to create that, a little bit of that gateway between the public space and the public private and the ground floor, but generally speaking, good
project. >> mr. rizzo >> i looked at project they showed us -- this is for the ground floor picture and alleys. they showed me pictures of units in london where you would step down then step up. could you do that here where you can get another floor? >> absolutely. we have hallways in the back of these units that initially when we had raised units designed we were using that hallway to (inaudible) so we can raise steps up and step down and still allow for units that are accessible to people with disability or we just raise it by 18 inches or so and, yeah, we have, there are some ways we could do it. definitely. >> i will refer to commissioner moore on some of the finer points of that design. >> commissioner moore. >> any project when it comes
forward we have to attempt to be compliant where we have concrete construction here where the ceiling height is shallower than other kinds of construction, we have rather low ceilings, we all know how to do the height limit if you want to put 9 floors in there. you still have to accommodate structure and i think in order on meet the code requirement for proper treatment on the alleys, and i don't want to make science out of it except just to rely on the consistency by which we do what the departments held us to do. this will be a stretch and i am personally not prepared to let this go to quiet height because this should have been considered from the get go. i don't personally feel i can negotiate stepping up or stepping down because stepping down will only exacerbate the
fact you will be looking even more into the unit. so that is just basically not going to work. i just have to ask that this project does the right research, comes forward with the right unit yield for the commercial purpose that this building comes forward but does not try to negotiate around rules that we are only simply here to use what the planning department has very eloquently developed at least for me as guidance. so i cannot do anything else, just say that this project needs more study and also to commissioner johnson and to everybody's edification, this is not an sro in the conventional way, this is basically an sro which deals more with the crunch on tech workers who nreed to find a smaller unit, a well-sized unit and again it can be open for anybody but its primary purpose is private development and that's when i am saying you need to look a little bit closer if you want a unit
yield, you've got to meet some basic requirements of what the code asks all of us to do. i cannot invent a more acceptable solution except is asking this project does the proper research and will challenges we have in light of the livability of units on alleys. >> commissioners, if i may, a couple -- i think as rich pointed out, the typical preferences to either set the unit back at the ground level or raise it up or both because of privacy issues. and i think what we've been trying to figure out here is a way to do that without losing units. so i would ask, could you clarify, rich or the project sponsor, on the height limit? the lower level building is at the height limit or close to it. >> yes. >> so the lower level building is within the tall raupbses for
the alley setbacks. >> i mean i think perhaps the way to approach this would be to say, to have the commissioners consider approving the project with a couple of options or direction to staff on exactly what you'd want to see. i hear general support from the commission. oh, the other question i have is -- well, we're at the height limit. nothing we would do at the ground level if it khaifrpbs the form of the building in any way would create different park shadow issues, right? >> correct. as long as it's not the larger mass, it's the smaller one. >> so it's the taller part of the building that creates the shadow, not the shorter? >> correct. >> i don't know, i mean i don't think, i think i would ask phil to weigh in but i don't know from a park standpoint that there's a direct issue, but perhaps for park users going back and forth
by the building it might be something we can look at. >> yeah, we typically don't weigh in directly on design, but i think our preference would certainly be for either step up or setback to the extent the units are facing privacy concerns in the park, that tends to create a little more conflict with park users if the spaces are so close together. i think maybe kind of a healthier coexistence between the residential units and, you know, outdoor play actually would be well served by that kind of, by pursuing that kind of option. >> okay, commissioner richards. >> yes, procedural question, understanding we're talking about the design of the building, tall structure will not change the shadow impact and now we're getting into design issues. as i look at the way the schedule is, should we go ahead and vote on the
shadow issue and then deal with the design issue in a commission meeting or what should we do here? >> entirely up to you, commissioners, at this point. if the rec and park commission is prepared to move their portion of the items forward you can continue deliberation regarding design or you can take up the entire matter now and then take up the matter after the rec and park commission adjourn. >> and the rec and park's approval of it, though, would be on the mass propozd and it we got into design and change the mass, that would bring this back to another hearing, correct? >> potentially, yes. >> we need to deal with the mass. >> if you are going to change it, yes. >> as proposed. >> commissioner moore. >> let me make a suggestion. the two buildings are engaged at the ground level. in order for the shiply street units to perform and be raised 3 levels,
at the point where the two buildings lock is properly done you could sep step up through the corridor into the annex, into the shiply street annex. that can be done in a number of ways with steps as well as a ramp in order for somebody who has something to carry or whatever, for that grade transition to occur at that level. in response to director ginsberg's comment, i do believe the alley is complemented by elevating the ground floor unit. it is already older residential, smaller buildings, now the alley completes itself as a complete alley rather than this awkward what's going on there. i think it will be comfortable for the people who live in the units as well as those who are walking by. so i think it is a win-win by consider not guilty some form or other to do the
grade change within the building, there's also a large bicycle room which could be reconsidered, that way transition is much easier to accomplish. there's possibilities but we cannot design this building together but i would ask mr. terrell, the architect, to possibly acknowledge that is possible. could you step up and explain that to both commissions? >> absolutely, this is an important issue and something we've given a great deal of attention to. a project of this sort sometimes is cast by what is its primary image and that's the corner of the building. the secondary portion of this building, which is the first 4 floors of the building in terms of the organization of the commercial space point of sbli for the overall building and lastly these garden units has been something we've been back and forth on, not just this project but several projects in the past. so we've learned some things about just these things
and i don't say anything in terms of what solution might be important. given the size of the units and the pressure on that ground floor plate to do what what's going to do nr terms of bicycle storage and amenity we've been looking at negotiating how that can come and go. i think the floor plate that might be rendered by virtue of picking this up a few steps, we actually have that, the last solution we provided before we came to commission and that is something we negotiated back to where we are today. my preference would be to look closely in the existing six-foot sidewalks with the condition the little alley we have that's coming, by planting and surfaces and the like but look at the threshold between the 6 mot existing sidewalk and the band that we have now, which is still hardscape but think becomes something of a
buffer because it's planted, then develop a forecourt, would safe as a place to take off your shoes. these units are rather small so entering dregtly from the sidewalk experience into the unit is a little less than what we would hope at this point. so my preference would be to raise the units by a matter of 18 to 24 inches, several steps, if you will, and propose a gated entry as we had before with vertical bars of sorts that would be something he will -- elegant, something complementary to the plat we have now would be recessed, that gives the elevation that would give added space to these units that they could benefit from. as i said, we had several solutions to this end, we tried to work closely with the intuition and the judgment
of the planning staff to come up with a solution that we felt we could all bring for the benefit of the project. >> do you still have that particular stech sketch with you? >> i don't have it today. >> it was too dark. >> it was a concern. it was a concern both about is it too shaded and is it safe and that was a concern we last shook hands on, decided we would bring it forward and raise it by one step and utilize the planting xhepx that xhepx that dimension that we had that would be permeable but not planted. . >> commissioners, so you'll see here, this is the original version of this step where we have the unit basically over here, a small forecourt over here and then basically the sidewalk over here. and i
think it sounds like it's going to accommodate a raised entry, a stoop, over here especially if we reorganize where the storefront is over here and not have it censors, basically push over the side that we can create that public-private zone between the public right of way, the private open space for the units here as well as give that buffer between where the units is and where the street is. >> if i may, i think the difference between what you saw before and what you just -- that drawing and the potential better solution is that there wouldn't be a solid wall, it would be more transparent. >> correct. >> but still raise up and provide that public-private zone in front of you. >> yeah, the architects can certainly look at some kind of
gate to separate between the two or some kind of screen or transition element that works with the overall design of the building. >> and if i may, to respond to mr. gilberti's question, most of the roof is actually an outdoor space for the residents to use. >> good. i'm supportive of the items commissioner moore brought up and i'm even more delight toad hear there has been through the study of this at least one version that comes close to meeting that and staying within the mass of the project size. commissioner richards. >> just one question, mr. sucrai, this would look something like in the guidelines where there's a gate, there's a landing and there's a door recessed or there would be --. >> yeah, i'm confident we can work with the architects to basically develop a scheme or a forecourt scheme that basically hits upon the intensive ground floor --. >> that wouldn't change the
massing of the building? >> it would not. >> so we are still good. >> commissioner johnson. >> fantastic. i think you've answered my question and we can talk in a second about the findings we should make about the large project authorization to sort of memorialize that. i know there's potential for the landing to be dark but you don't necessarily have to have an awning or something to provide privacy. i'm referencing newer buildings on keen and second right across from the ballpark and the ground floor units that are there, yeah, they have two steps up, glass, three-foot gate and then the door. there's no awning, there's no obstruction, there's no big huge planters and those people see thousands of people walking by their doors going to giants games but i notice many of them do have their shades up at least halfway on one or more stories. those sorts of
changes really do impact the street life so i appreciate that. okay, do we ask them to do the shadow? >> commissioner moore. >> i have one more comment to mr. sucrai, i would like to encourage that support to mr. ginsberg's comments that appropriate lighting is added to these little stoop up setbacks so that at night when somebody in late afternoon comes from any of our rec and park facilities walking through the alley, which is now on the street, et cetera, also has a feeling, yeah, people are home and the lights are on and there's a proper residential feel to what is now a pretty dark, deeply recessed front door. >> great. >> thanks, appreciate it. >> one last question to the project sponsor with regard to the commercial space. is it my understanding that you are providing below market rate commercial space as a part of
the agreement with the community? we heard a couple people get up and talk about this business and that business staying. >> we have been in negotiation with various neighborhood groups to see what we can do to help the neighborhood and this was one of those that that portion of the commercial space could be assigned to them. the size of it, you know, we haven't hashed out yet but we told them, that, yes, a portion of it would be used for them. >> this space from a commercial point of view is challenging because of the neighborhood? i'm trying to understand. i'm walking down through new buildings, some of them have been built in 2000 in the mission they are still empty after 15 years. i really want you to work with the community on trying to get local businesses in there. >> sure, absolutely. >> the other thing is, as i look at the map and i look at the community room and then the storage area down on the ground floor it seemed a little counter intuitive to me that we
would have -- bike stores make sense but is there storage for apartment interior stuff down on the ground floor? what is that storage area, the bike storage area? >> you can see circulation of the building and all the amenities that is needed, the panels, the pump rooms and all that, a rather generous -- this is why we came up with this idea of having that open space, you know, to reduce the size of the massing, the size of the building at ground floor, provide open space at grade, you know, and provide open space in that area. >> so community space at the ground floor versus the 8th floor. >> that's right. >> ground floor makes more sense to me because people come and go, it has access maybe off the lobby? >> that's right. 8th floor, first of all, we are using one, we'll be using one unit. the
sound rating of that floor is going to be an issue because there's, i don't know, 10 or 11 units there and have people hanging out. >> sure. >> it would be an issue at that level. so we are, again, you know --. >> what's the logic of putting the community room on the 8th floor, is there some view or some other benefit i'm missing? you are losing a unit, you have to kind of soundproof it because people are going to be playing games and tv and things like that. is there a benefit i'm missing at having it on the 8th floor? >> this was working with the planning department. we had a unit at that location. >> so if you took the community room and put it on the first floor, on the 8th floor would there be storage? >> no, on the 8th floor would be additional unit, 103 units, it would have view. >> if we move the unit what
does it do? >> nothing. >> i strongly believe that we're losing a unit for rec room on the ground floor and putting storage on the 8th floor is not something i would support. >> commissioners, typically with the sro units we are definitely looking for some kind of common amenity space that the residents can use, given the small size of the units. it's something we've asked from a lot of the sro projects. in this case given they have that common roof deck on the top floor we found that a kind of community room for the residents, which is what what it would be used for was complementary to the roof deck area. the sponsor in this case was will ing to sacrifice a unit. in terms of storage, the
small size of the units lends itself to a need for residential storage which is something that is commonly lacking in a lot of these new developments so it's actually good they included storage space that could be used for the units. >> so the community room has great views of the downtown, you can stand up there with your friends and that's why it's connected to the roof. >> precisely. >> if it's a rainy day you can just -- okay, i understand that. thank you. >> i see no more questions by rec and park. margaret, what's your advice? commissioner low, did you want to make some recommendations on the matter before us? >> yes, the shadow that is case on to jean friend you just have to evaluate the shadow as
the conditions currently exist at jean friend. it does hit an active play ground area as well as basketball court, but it is before the facility is open and i do have some amendments to the resolution, they are nonsubstantive in general, it just cleans up the resolution and cleans up language that is repeated and would like to move this forward based on these amendments to the resolution. >> commissioners, all of you have those resolutions in front of you. >> yeah, the red line resolutions. >> we need a second. >> we have a motion. is there a second? >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. >> commissioner low, aye. commissioner harrison, aye. commissioner anderson, aye. and commissioner buell, aye.
commissioner johnson, aye. commissioner coppell, aye. that motionses unanimously 5-0. >> now rec and park commission, you are on 1b, which is to adopt a resolution to recommend to the planning commission that the new shadow cast by the proposed project at 345 6th street will not have a significant adverse impact on the use of the jean friend recreation center as required by planning code section 295 and i think commissioner low you had some amendments there also. >> thank you. again i make some modifications to the resolution. it is nonsubstantive in nature, again is just to clean up language as well as some language that's not necessary in the resolution. on that basis i'd like to move this matter forward for the rec and park commission to approve this matter based on the amendments to the resolution. >> and you are finding that it
does not have adverse significant -- right? >> right. >> i heard a second. it's been moved and seconded. >> commissioner low, aye. commissioner harrison, aye. commissioner harrison, aye, and commissioner buell, aye. we are adjourned. >> it's always a pleasure to have these joint meetings but it's frustrating because it would be nice to weigh in on all these design issues and we wish you the very best. >> commissioner, we'll be here several hours. i'm sure the planning commission would love your attendance. >> we appreciate the invitation and pass. >> i'm sure we will see each other again in soon. >> planning commissioners, we are still in session. i'm sure the rec and park will retire
quietly to allow us to continue with the large project authorization and 1b and 1c >> commissioner richards. >> i move that the findings for the shadow project -- i move to approve the project with the direction to staff to have a transition point between the sidewalk private and public space, have a step up of at least 18 inches and a recessed entry. >> second. >> to the ground floor. >> to the ground floor on shiply. >> second. >> 18 inches isn't enough, it has to be up at least two steps. >> two steps would be 14 inches. >> 18 inches, better. >> minimum of 18? >> minimum of 18, that's better. >> that's what he said. >> second.
>> on that motion, then, commissioner johnson, aye. commissioner coppell, aye. xhoor moore, aye. commissioner president fong, aye. that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and concludes this special hearing. >> okay, great. so this -- general public comment? okay, the meeting is adjourned. (meeting adjourned).
good afternoon recruits! i'm going to be very short, because i am -- [laughter ] >> okay, i should start off with a joke -- you have to laugh. anyway, first off, it's my pleasure to be with the chief and with our department of public health director to welcome you into the finest police department in the country and i know that because that is what you have chosen to do and i'm very gratified i could be here in front of you as you ago through this invaluable academy and training. really two points i want to raise. one is to thank you for making that choice. you can join any other department in the whole bay area, but you have chosen our city and i'm grateful for that. second is that today i especially appear before you to make sure that you understand what we are trying to do as an entire city with our police department. we're undergoing one of the
biggest reform efforts in the history of this department, and our chief is leading that, and one of the reasons today is that you will undoubtedly be involved in many of our confrontations that other police officers do probably on a daily basis. and the trend has been that there are more people that are victims of alcohol and drug abuse, and will exhibit in many occasions a danger to themselves or others and you will definitely be called upon to intervene in those situations. one of the principles of our police reform that is going on today, one that i greatly value is the principle of the sanctity of life. you probably already have
been receiving training on that. but you also will be trained in the practice called "receiving time and distance." that is when you are called upon, i think we'll ask you to do your best to create that time and distance for the purpose of preserving life. in that, i want you to know that the rest of the city is not simply asking you to carry the entire burden of that. ; that we're going to be partners with you the best that we can and one of those strong partnerships that i am and this administration is funding with the full cooperation of the police commission, your chief , all the management staff is to say that when you are asked to intervene and if you can create that time and distance with everybody's safety in mind, we'll then have mental health and public health
experts to be at your side. so that they can do the specialty crisis intervention that you create the time and distance in order to have. we have got to work as a team. if we're going save more lives out there, we have to make sure that we have the ability to get some professionals to work alongside with you, so we can intervene in the sometimes very tragic circumstances and if we can get the mental health expertise with the people standing behind me, the crisis intervention specialists, they are referred to as our entire team train by our public health department to work in these crisis situations, we're going save more lives and ultimate ly that is what you seek to do in your profession and we want
everybody's lives to be here. you will get crisis intervention training. you will be introduced to the sanctity of life principle, but in the real-street situations that we have, it's your ability to implement that in an effective way with the chief and all of the managers crisis and all of the trainers that are here. that we want to do it with your safety in mind and with the immediate people's safety in mind so we can gain that valuable, sometimes minutes to be able to introduce a professional. so that we can go on and perhaps save a person's life even more times than we have in the past. quite frankly, it has worked in no less than probably five situations in the past several months. and i was with the chief on one of those occasions, almost three to four hours in those negotiations and we saved everybody's life and
everybody walked away. we need more of those opportunities, because there is drugs, there is drug abuse, there is a tremendous amount of mental illness and you can't do it all. we don't want to tell you to do it all, but you have an invaluable part of that process. so those are two messages. again, thank you for choosing the city and county of san francisco to work in and we'll be there to create more classes as more of our officers decide they want to have an even better life and retire and at the same time, we need to get enough officers to meet the challenges of population, and the needs of every one of our neighborhoods. thanks for being officers in the city and county of san francisco. chief . >> first of all real fast i'm with the mayor every wednesday and the joke you heard i have to hear those
every wednesday when i meet with him [laughter ]so the sympathy should be flowing my way. the incident that the mayor was talking about wasing at market and jones and it was a support armed with a firearm and the officer showed incredible restraint and saves that mans a life. i have since met with the mother and father of the man's life that was saved and they are incredibly grateful to the san francisco police department. they spent about two hours praising our efforts, and giving us kudos for making sure that resolved the way it did. that is what we're trying to push forward and we all understand it's not always going to work out in our favor and things that happen that are well beyond the control of anybody wearing that uniform and we need to make sure we're crystal clear on that, but at same time, to approach every situations a life-saving situation. the department is moving in a different direction and we're trying to be at the front of this and not the back of the line. i just sat in an awards ceremony, voting process for
department members to get silver medals and awards and most of the recipients came up in situations that they tracked about what they did and talked about using time and distancing in deescalation. one an officer was stabbed in throat on the freeway on-ramp and went for his firearm which he reholstered to baton because he recognized that the situation changed and the individual no longer had the knife and he had presence of mind to think about it as it unfolded. another situation a gentleman was sharpening a knife and had residents holed because they were too afraid and they formulated the plan of creating time and distance and they subdued him and took him into custody without shooting him. arguably a year-and-a-half, two years ago the officer-involved shooting scenarios pure and simple. that is what we're trying to
preach and push today and the group standing behind me are meant to give you additional tools in the tool belt when you have those situation and the san francisco police department is proud to partner again with the department of public health on mental health services to the community and the san francisco police have worked with department of public health for years including mobile crisis teams providing assistance to child crisis services which helps youth in crisis. this new team of clinicians standing behind me isa valuable to san francisco police officers to support negotiators in the field and conduct crisis assessments and debrief persons involved and affected by incidents, and consult with victims and provide crisis services. they are going to also assist with our ongoing crisis intervention training program to help our officers improve their ability to recognize people with behavioral health problems. this program is part of an ongoing reform system that the department has
undertaken over the past year and again, i'm talking about the san francisco police department being the lead, not following, not picking things up from everybody else. we were using a model that is still effective, but there is say better model. and our people are now researching that model to bring it to san francisco with dealing with people in crisis. that is part of us taking the lead. we're under a collaborative reform initiative review by the department of justice right now that we invited in. because again, all of these changes are meant to make us better. so i want us all to make sure we embrace it and look behind me at these white jackets with another tool for the san francisco police department to use to enforce the sanctity of life on the streets and save people, because that is our primary mission to preserve life. i want to introduce director. >> thank you you and thank you all of you and i saw you standing at attention to so
long and you are so fortunate to be part of a city and part of a police force that are going to be at the head of many police forces in this country in terms of really understanding the impact of substance-abuse and mental health on many of the individuals that you may meet. behind me is a team that we have been over the last decade working very closely with the police, and coming to any incidents of violence and providing assessments and support to family members. we're going to be expanding this team with three clinical psychologists and social workers to work deeper with all of you and give you training how to engage and meet the needs of many of these individuals. and also, i have been on the calls and some of these interventions that the police chief talked about, and we believe we can really give you really important information about the background of an individual, who you may be negotiating with. and so we're very proud. i'm very proud of the team that is behind you in the white coats and i'm very proud of the team in the blue.
and together we're going to be really providing you, i believe, some essential training and also support. and we believe that doing this together, we can reduce -- improve the health of many of the individuals who you are going to come in contact and reduce the incidents that we have at times when we have to be more forceful with individuals. so we look forward to this. we're going to be quickly hiring these individuals, and the police will be involved with this in hiring. so we have the right type of individual who will work with us closely and by the new year, we'll be really working closely and responding. in between now and then, this team behind me will be taking that place until our new staff is expanded. we're 24/7, and we're located in the bay view, but we travel throughout the city in order to provide these services. so i want to thank you for your attention today and we look forward to working with you, and proud to see all of you today becoming new police officers. [ applause ]
>> good afternoon commissioner and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of scheduled meeting of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar and commissioner moore. >> commissioners commissioners, the first item on your agenda is items proposed for continuance item one at townsend conditional use