Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals 12716  SFGTV  December 30, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm PST

4:00 pm
>> good evening and welcome to the tuesday, december 7, 2016, meeting meeting of san francisco board of appeals presiding officer commissioner president honda and commissioner wilson commissioner fung will be absent this evening to my left is brad the deputy city attorney and will provide advise gary and my name is cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we're joined by scott sanchez at the table had in the front the zoning administrator and representing the planning department and planning commission should be joined by senior building inspector joe duffy who will be representing of the
4:01 pm
inspection 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. 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. have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff
4:02 pm
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 raise your right hand and say i do after you've been you affirmed do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> great thank you. >> so the first item is general public comment this is the opportunity for people who wish to address the board on the
4:03 pm
the subject property jurisdiction not on tonight calendar any general public comment seeing none, move on to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners anything. >> since this is the last official hearing we want to wish everyone a. >> it is appropriate to acknowledge the sadness and tragedy that occurred in oakland and since your charge here it is 0 make sure that building are safe they're built and maintained according to standards the importance - that was - it hit hard we actually knew something that is
4:04 pm
sometimes, we don't make the public hearing when you see something as tragic as oakland we have a purpose in the long run we should send our condolences to the families of those that pashd. >> thank you any public comment on item 2. >> seeing none, then we'll move on to item 3 the boards consideration of 2016 minutes. >> unless any additions or changes may i have a motion to accept. >> so moved. >> thank you. any any public comment on the minutes a motion if sdmdz to adopt the minutes and commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig. >> okay. thank you that motion carries. >> we will then hear item 4 a
4:05 pm
rehearing request the the subject property on richardson after the appellant is requesting a rehearing versus 7 zoning administrator decided 2016 contaminate the board voted with commissioner wilson absent to grant the appeal and uphold the condition that is glass rail around the roof be changed to a parapet that allows the variance to meet the 5 findings under the plastering and the variance holder of record is laura and commissioner wilson have you have an opportunity to review the video. >> yes. >> and read the paper okay. great so you can fully participate. >> okay. thank you. >> so we can hear from the
4:06 pm
requester. >> good evening and welcome bryan. >> thank you good evening commissioner president honda and commissioners happy holidays bryan patterson on behalf of the appellant that is a manifest injustice and new materials and evidence from dbi and i emphasis this is positive evidence. >> the issue in this case where the variance are will be detrimental to the neighboring properties the answer is yes that means as a mattered of law the variance can't be issued >> a couple of days formally asked dbi whether for my clients building without an operatorable window in the bedroom can the window can't be a bedroom i received verbal confirm yes. you losses the window and by the
4:07 pm
time bedroom i would have gotten here earlier i'll read the written letter he shared what any client last time. >> an exist non-conforming building conditioned for specific can be continued to use as approved by the building department in changes to the said spaces and area make sense the existing non-conforming building conditions for specific space continued use as their originally approved by the building permit as long as no changes to those original approvals and sets spaces and area to remain the same we're talking about the notch entertainment commission and modifications to the footprint within the the subject propertys would require that said spaces meet the code per bedroom and limitations property line
4:08 pm
windows may be located closer to the property line per window than the california building code and there are specific restrictions in those 5 a bedroom by code is an habitable says that the definition as follows: a space for living and eating and sleeping bathrooms and storage closest are not habitable the requirement of a habitable space natural light and ventilation and sleeping room complies that the section for integer egress note a window insulate under the presence of ab within that bedroom will not serve this requirement as mentioned translation from the notch goes in the original requirement go
4:09 pm
out this is no longer bedroom we lose our bedroom due to this project. >> hi is that time. >> yep your time is up and madam director should we wait for inspector duffy. >> we can do that he's missed the information. >> yeah. give him a chance. >> i have a direct question. >> so should we wait; right? >> yeah. i think we should at this point. >> so do you want to put the meeting in recess until he arrives. >> correct. correct. >> do i need to - >> oh, there he is inspector duffy. >> where's your cape and commissioner president honda do you want to - there was
4:10 pm
information oh. >> mr. boskovich does inspector duffy have that? >> (inaudible). >> should we call on the variance holders to come and address the board and then. >> sure. >> and then if you need. >> the departments more time to review things we can do that. >> i agree. >> okay. >> so can we hear from - commissioners joe duffy dbi to say i'm not impressed is an underestimate mr. boskovich was many in my office and told me this morning you saw in the
4:11 pm
brief a building issue i tried to find out he said he wouldn't show me went to someone in dbi and get this preopting openly letter packed it up yesterday didn't tell the person that he got a preapplication letter didn't tell me until 40 minutes ago it is unfair we looked there the inspector, next line item. >> inspector had he known with an appeal on richardson would that have made a difference we'll not know but mark would have came in and spoken to me and may have made a different decision should not be told by mr. boskovich that there was
4:12 pm
even an issue with 60 richard son and acting on behalf of chestnut street i told him i was upset to answer a question on something i'm not prepared for i want to say that before i start. >> thank you. >> all right. so mr. silverman. >> good evening commissioner president honda and mbes david silverman on behalf of did variance holder without getting into the back and forth about the letter i just printed outburst a copy of the rules of the board and award to rehearing section 9
4:13 pm
the board may grant if the materials and circumstances have arisen and a written request must be submitted to the board for a rehearing and here's the operative language the written request shall state the nature and character of the new facts and circumstances well the request was made a couple of weeks ago no new facts and circumstances the names of witnesses or description of the documents to be produced as we heard today, the letter if dbi was signed i believe sometime today so there was not produced a couple of weeks ago finally number 3 why the
4:14 pm
evidence is not produced tests original hearing we've not heard any of the evidence about that it goes on to as a failure to experience due diligence to produce the new facts and circumstances at the previous hearing shall be deemed grounds for denial of the request so shall is pretty forceful i looked at that the new letter from dbi out in the hallway for about 5 minutes i don't have is a copy of it but if there's a need to i saw enough of the letter i'll be able to rebut the conclusions that were drawn from it i don't think they were correct on the part of appellants he concur a number of ways the language can
4:15 pm
be read the letter is not clear and didn't amount four very much. >> thank you. >> and before we go further i need to make a disclose i have an existing relationship with the firm reuben, junius & rose and retained them the board will not have an effect on my decision. this evening. >> okay. so mr. sanchez you're next. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. don't have much this is a very important issue and important point that was part of appellants primary argument and i don't know that the building permit has before provided with all the information necessary to make a decision only priority with information from one party not both parties they've been provided with plans to make this
4:16 pm
decision so urban design group this is very unfortunate it the approach taken had that been done some time ago that was an actual filed even looks like the request was made in mid-november with the department of building inspection had this been done before the previous hearing when the appeal was filed had the department of building inspection and inspector duffy been made aware of the request it could have been facilitated that was poorly handled by the appellant but it is important information to gather we want to make sure we have the accurate facts and defer to the department of building inspection on this matter the question of the impacts on the adjacent property was one of the reasons he had them make changes
4:17 pm
to the project after the initial his and her that was a concern and want that window to be maintained we understand that will with the conversation with joe duffy and he believed it can be retained there is conflicting information not accurate to the department of building inspection in a proper fashion so - >> available for questions thank you. >> not on ideal situation. >> well, i hope our feeling better. >> yes. much than yesterday. >> what's your overall thoughts on how this board should look at this situation. >> given the untimely. >> this was first made if they had let dbi that was secret active from the filing of the we
4:18 pm
could have had conversation and come to you with a definitive answer rather than i think misinformation perhaps you know there is still the building permit application process associated and a an appeal process associated with that which could resolve things i'd like to have this information wrapped up before the variance is final you know - the appellant has gone about it not in a fair or proper manner they've had quite a bit of time to come up with this and failed to use the time i didn't receive a copy until just now. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> shall we invite mr. duffy
4:19 pm
back i don't know if so more he wants to add. >> joe duffy dbi again, the having something in our brief it new evidence founded department of building inspection to be presented at the rehearing will demonstrate the aforementioned material i work at dbi why not come and see me i could look at the plans and give you guys a proper opinion on this i will say if we're talking about property line windows and occasionally people lose their property line windows when a wall is going for an addition and sometimes, people lose out this is discussions beforehand with the notification from the planning department in this case, i building there is sill 3 foot 3 to either the
4:20 pm
property line or the neighbors the wall at the 60th richardson i don't know we're asking for that window to be removed without having the draurlgz i'm guessing bulls that window wouldn't have to be removed twhaefr was stated to the gentleman it needs to be removed again not have enough time to look at this had i gotten is this morning or yesterday may have gotten spoken about this but in general sometimes, people lose property line windows and sometimes they're allowed to stay i don't know if that's any help to you but available for any questions. >> thank you. >> so - you weren't here i mean the documents in front of you wouldn't while you missing
4:21 pm
or why you're wondering new you know there was a document that was read as the statute in place with the windows my interpretation that window wouldn't be an operatorable window therefore prohibit the use of that room as a bedroom and therefore the obvious extension of that is well, that that's injustice it will kill the value of the house because the major bedroom is not in use that's the line of thought this counsel wanted to put forward let's go to the part about do you see that window as not operateable and therefore
4:22 pm
critiquing the automatic result this not a bedroom that's the crux. >> the question the preapplication meeting was that for work on 2447 chestnut street are richardson if you present a preapplication letter to dbi that's for on attend project thank you property you're looking at not another property you're filing on appeal on so mr. boskovich again, our preapplication process for someone in tandem to do this how will you guys do this what can i get or not get the window on chestnut street i don't know where dbi makes you as a neighbor do something to our window if someone builds a wall
4:23 pm
we have sometimes someone wants to do that i don't know where were we requiring 25, 47 chuftd street to do anything to their window because of the project at 68 richardson based on the limited knowledge about the project no plans this is a permit as well as i'll say the building permit could be appealed and dealing with that during the appeal of the building permit but i'm not sure the chestnut street i can't stand up here and say we have to do go anything at all with the window people can keep them. >> let me rephrase the question in a conjectural if there was a building were there was an additional made how far would that and a wall was coming very close to an operatorable
4:24 pm
window which is a bedroom how far will that wall have to come before dbi to look at not the building under construction but the next door building and say you could no longer use that as as bedroom not an operatorable window how close. >> you see that up to a property line someone that allowed to build and someone has a window in there been there a long time we come across this occasionally i don't know if dbi makes you, you do it is discussed ahead of destruction a new wall completely in front of your window and to say sometimes we've had issues someone said
4:25 pm
hey he lost my window didn't pay attention to the permit process and it is a very difficult situation i you know but. >> if something is being built i think the space was 3 feet let's call it 3 feet for conversation is the 3 feet that creates the requirement to not have an operatorable window would that be triggered but as a fire safety issue what would trigger new construction - trigger something in a building that is not under construction as a result of something that was done in a new construction. >> that would stop on operateable window. >> it is a case by case basis but 3 feet if federally you're
4:26 pm
not having to side anything, at all 3 feet from property lines are permitted sorry operateable openings have permitted 25 percent and sprinklers building as many as you wish on that wall in this case if this is 3 feet we're definitely not doing anything unless a wall up to that prep e property line i don't know we were touching it we're not going to go there i think someone said 3 by 3 i don't have the drawings. >> may i question mr. duffy could that information or determination have been obtained on the variance if it was an angle that the appellant was going to use could they not have
4:27 pm
come to you this was dloeshl at the time of the original hearing. >> i think but i did not pay attention i thought the 3 foot 3 not an issue the window is not an issue only came up in my life and it wasn't in the brief so could have been and mr. boskovich seize me everyday could have told me that came up last week he speaks to me about cases i would have precedent a knowledge and could have maybe done more research in an effort to get the plans gone to mr. walls is this accurate have you been given all the facts for your meeting let's look at this closer i have to present before the board of appeals not the
4:28 pm
regular preopenly meeting owe see why he done it was the way it was done i wish it had of been more open and certainly addressed on the building permit but i don't know why we go to make 3 foot 3 from property lines definitely not an issue. >> thank you. >> next thing is public comment. >> so i don't know if you want to wait. >> i'll wait any public comment on this item. >> jonathan wade here to represent elaine my name is elaine i own richardson the building next door about two months ago i bumped into my
4:29 pm
neighbor that lives nearby i asked her about the sign posted on their window under the planning department and our conversation was as follows: aaron and - the new home is built aaron could not wait to move into the new home i assume aaron will be renting out richardson i was upset and spoke to the lady about the expansion voiced in any concern i never received a notice and no return call impact from the architect he got the number in the window the lady at the planning department said i need to the file a petition that means time and money i don't have the lady in the planning department said she'll have the architects call any i realized there was affordable unit a large impact to any building my tenant and me
4:30 pm
it is not acceptable it richardson move forward i'll losses any window on the south side of the building. >> can you speak into the microphone. >> i'll allows my window and my right to light and privacy i'm concerned any tenant will be exposed to excessive noise. >> my tenants bedrooms inches from the new roof deck has a hot tub and fire pit it may affect might insurance they center two children and another tenants just had a new born in conclusion if i had the time and money to fight this i'll appear before the board of appeals about the effects he ask
4:31 pm
the board of appeals to consider my concerns and right to life privacy and the peaceful enjoyment of my home i'm asking you to continue to keep richardson in the marina a safe place to live and keep the codes and not block my window if you have questions feel free to comment i also have the apartment of 54 plus richardson the greenhouse and 68 richardson goes above the pap smears above blocking the windows as you can see blokes the entire window thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> i'm speaking for carmen the
4:32 pm
appellant who has failed and i'm sorry the appellant time to speak is with - >> the attorney. >> not a problem. >> if you have something to say for yourself you can use your time. >> at the board of appeals hearing in october mr. silverman attorney lied about our property on chestnut mr. silverman said we were too far away to be effected on the contrary our house is 20 feet door to door not many houses away here's a picture of our boarding this is our doorknob and this is richardson our 12-year-old daughters window faces richardson she needs to use that window for light and air we'll hear music from a party deck 68
4:33 pm
richardson will diminish our daughters right to privacy he state we have a hot tub rooftop we have a catwalk and not used due to the small size here's a picture mr. silverman said we all have backyard none of us in the marina have outdoor space and fortunate to be surrounded by nature we live one block from the presidio three hundred park and from the fine arts and 4 blocks from the bay not a neighborhood with more access to outdoor spaceless at your doorsteps they missed the losses of light that's a direct result of 68 richardson the reality this effects our light the most important time of the year and every bit of sunshine is
4:34 pm
important to us he talked about the parapet for those reasons we ask the board to look at those projects in summary to override the variance approval the couple is asking for a large outside space to the detriment of our neighborhood this is your roof deck i'm taking the picture and as you can see there is a no roof deck in the neighborhood on our block that picture shows you across the street no roof deck you can't see it because of the speech. >> - >> there we go. >> this is across the street from 68 richardson no roof deck that is across the street if on chestnut street on the other side of richardson no roof deck thank you for your time. >> thank you.
4:35 pm
>> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm dr. rubinstein on chestnut street i grew up in the bayview a professor at the ucsf and researcher and oncology i moved in chestnut street with my wife in 2001 we love the house for privacy and the sexually assaulted that baths the small backyard and importantly the bedrooms in the back of the house of great value to me and my family and i wish to preserve that in late october at the mooefrg the presented testimony i had strong concerns of the projects with nothing else he testified under oath direct
4:36 pm
evidence was on the backyard with the building by this project on 68 richardson in terms of decreased light endorse to the back of my house 365 i raised those concerns back in october the corner of rebuttal there is in fact, a large tree in the backyard. >> we need the computer monitor. >> oh. >> becoming is.
4:37 pm
>> overhead. >> and this is the backyard this is light we built the gasped this is directly underneath the project the light will be directly impacted by the building project at 68 richardson much to the enjoyment of my backyard this is a consequence of this project the guardian is something i wish to develop further and plan to do so that was justified for this project to have a roof deck with a hot tub the way it has a hot tub was previously noted not in their backyard is not on the roof in the backyard so
4:38 pm
inconsistents effectually a plan for an open fire pit la weekend a tragic incident in. >> your time is up. >> any public comment on this item seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think mr. silverman read rule 9 could you look at that needing to be in writing what the conditions or the stipulations were regarding the request. >> we have the rules thank you. >> we have the rules thank you very much. >> i'm asking the city attorney. >> the rules require that the written state the nature of the facts and circumstances and the witnesses and documents we produce and why the evidence is not produced at the original hearing. >> so in my view not the case
4:39 pm
what was submitted. >> i believe the appellant is preceding under the theory under this rule which says accept in steadier case to prevent manifest injustice they're preceding on the theories this is an stewart case to prevent manifest injustice which is an exception to produce new circumstances. >> while we're asking the city attorney so - >> if the city came and said to the appellant you can't use the bedroom anymore as a bedroom and can't be used as a a bedroom which might effect the value or use of house would that be
4:40 pm
considered manifest injustice? >> i don't know if i can provide an answer to that i'm not sure it requires possibly some case file research the appellant - >> it didn't come up black and white for you. >> so i'll start i'm somewhat appalled by the way it has been handled and i'm going to go on the theory this information could have been gotten at the time of the original hearing and therefore inclined to deny the request for rehearing. >> a followup i concur with my fellow commissioner, i think that the bar for rehearing is quite high the information that has been presented before everyone and everything everybody is exciting as has anxiety what was discussed at the last hearing we believe we discussed the window distances in length there was actually
4:41 pm
pictures of them showing someone standing on someone's other property they were addressing the window bars you don't believe i don't feel it reaches the bar for manifest injustice. >> i'm - commissioner lazarus with the way that was handled was unfortunate no catches you should come clean i want to make sure despite that annoyance we don't - is it permittable to ask mr. sanchez a question in the middle and come on up. >> what you said earlier take care you were talking this was an important considerations and then commissioner president
4:42 pm
honda asked you what our thinking was is this the kind of situation i don't at all want to reward this type of behavior should we have a continuance to give dbi a chance to look at it and talk about that again and i appreciate that means that someone has to wait but don't want to be annoyed as someone's bad behavior to have an injustice to the appellant not their fault that their lawyer used bad judgment. >> i think that is a very wise approach i mean this is important information to have again, i expressed and reiterate the frustration how the information was obtained and which may or may not have been may not be accurate bus
4:43 pm
inspector duffy is saying this would be okay i mean they're pending the discretionary review request if we could bring it back at the next hearing and have the department of building inspection have the final opinion on the window would be beneficial to everyone to get that resolved as unfortunate we're in the situation it would be good to get it resolved so the planning commission considers the discretionary review that can be adjudicated by this board and consider this action they have the full project for the dr disapprove or make at changes. >> follow-up question mr. sanchez which it goes to planning agency shown 3 foot 7 inches away is that a consideration that your department acts in issuing.
4:44 pm
>> i mean certainly the understanding given the separation of the 3 foot 3 before the property line and the building wall our understanding of the code that an existing condition will not be remedied but having a - with the discretionary review. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. duffy i'm happy to hear from him and commissioners i got some time i think it might be helpful to give you sight into this issue up and - we can can i have the overhead, please? let's see - i move it up not in
4:45 pm
the way so can we zoom in on this? move over >> okay so this might give us some help here this is the rear wall of the building on chestnut street going across the window as you can see is like a little bit heavy everyone see that so then the dashed line behind the rear wall runs parallel so meaning this was one lot and then in 1942 got split today, if you split that lot in the code you'll definitely lose our window will have to board up
4:46 pm
unfortunately, many many years ago they didn't do that they split the lot so the other thing the windows has been on property line whether we lost all building or not so in richardson gets build the window is on the line do not in my opinion the board can add a condition that window remains but it was all the property line were there was a building there or not maybe something that is pretty - so we could whether or not a building permit always been a window on the property line that was not dealt with in 1942 and split i've seen a lot of them all over the city from my experience as a building
4:47 pm
inspector the only time if this wall was moved to the property line as part of this project potentially they'll lose they're light on the egress it is so close you can't you lose egress and everything the fact that you've got a window yes going on someone else's property we see that a lot not something if i was a builder inspector oh, by the way, i have to tell the people on chestnut street they'll lose their window and not coming up with dbi on the project at 68 richardson i don't know if that helps but looking at the plans may help. >> if i may question so if it did come up during the plan review when the permit is being considered what might be a solution to it in terms of if
4:48 pm
you looked at the and said they'll have to get rid of the window. >> oh, the people on chestnut street they'll not have a bedroom there. >> i mean, that's too late lastly. >> there was a 3 foot that space yes you're going to someone's prompt but the point you're going on to someone else's property just bach because you're allowing 3 foot 3 and mr. sanchez said no way to expand that building to block the window so you'll always going over property lines for egress the fact they're putting the building has not changed anything that's my opinion. >> just to reiterate my question that condition will not
4:49 pm
grant a separateable window. >> sorry say that again. >> that condition the 3 feet that will not preempt the reason to have a window. >> right. >> which is the testimony that i heard. >> yeah. i mean it is - you, you have it a lot in the zero lot listens we have operateable windows all over the city in existing older buildings we don't go around making people board them up they're on the property line a non-conforming time comes into play grandfathered we're not using that in the building code i've been drawn into some of those without building permits on complaint we we won't touch if someone does that over the
4:50 pm
weekend and see a window where we didn't see it without a permit, of course, we'll cite them but an original trend for a window we don't bother we just i mean not a hazard not anything happened and not a hazard you know if those people on 68 richardson want to put up a high fence and block that that blocks the egress that would be a problem and we get that sometimes, the spite things ha, ha you're not using the window anymore and the permit holder can put a high fence. >> you can put if over 10 feet need a notification but i've seen situations like that the
4:51 pm
way i see it you can build richardson and nobody at dbi will care about the existing window on the property line that's been there certainly since i don't know whenever the building was built. >> okay. thank you. >> does that answer your question. >> yes. and then some. >> can i make a motion. >> no, i just think that on bans what we heard no in any evidence >> and more additional process for this particular yeah, does someone care to make a motion. >> i move to deny the request no new information and no manifest injustice. >> okay. on that motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the request commissioner president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig
4:52 pm
that request is denied with a vote of 4 to zero item 5 appeal. >> lisa versus the department of building inspection the property on 27 street 2016 to a, llc of an alteration permit to roof capped with sheet cover and screen the mechanical equipment setback thirty feet from - new open trellis less than 60 square feet and under separate permit start with the appellant and hold on my luck two out of 3 wish to disclose we have a existing relationship i've retained them the board will not have an effect on my decision. this evening.
4:53 pm
>> thank you. >> and welcome. >> ms. designating gal. >> thank you for having us. my first time appearing before you i live on 27 street the property in question i'd like to point out the history of this property includes the hearing before the planning commission in 2014 which limited the height and bulk of the project the neighbors asked for that negotiable hearing two years ago and we simply ask the intent of the planning commission be sustained as a reminder those included removing the proposed deck on the rear edition and reducing the dimensions maintaining a 5 foot segment for the upper two stories along the
4:54 pm
west elevation facing the residents on 27 street and avoiding the use of dark exterior paint part of reasons they gave for this is the commission in their discretionary review said there's two b necessary and desirable the commission wanted to insure the project sponsor addressed did surrounding neighbors by sculpting the overall massing to match the neighborhood context of rear additions into the mid block open space it feels incongruous reimburse with the blocks they didn't pivot open any property other than 27th street the property of one of the developers another reason the height and depth uphill on 27
4:55 pm
street in relation to the proposal under review the commission said remain firm this 5 foot setback should you urban design maintained at the upper floors to protect the neighbors the neighboring properties assess to light and air so i want to have us remember why this was the decisions were made the appeal i filed for the alternative permit was filed when it became clear to the maybe so the anybody else's for air-conditioning unit will be a solid wall the footprints of the roof deck that was specifically prohibited the permit asked was issued and included the removal of a stairwell which the developers were ordered to remove, however, instead of having the permit cover those they added the mechanical equipment the equipment and screens to be setback thirty
4:56 pm
feet in the visible if 27 street by the way, was the case until our appeal was filed and new open trellis sunshade were removed into a separate permit i want to note i appreciate that the owner developers did respond to the neighbors concerns about the noise and performed tests on november 30th after our brief was filed on november 17th and those tests were done because of the noise that was caused by the mechanicals on the - this is located in the back of the building and not on top of anyone's bedroom the developers use this noise abatement to
4:57 pm
build a solid wall it directly ties to the issue at hand the planning department limited the mass of project the developer stated that removing the stairway was an accommodations to the neighborhood they were ordered they wrote in my brief, in fact, they later my mind in their brief the was confirmed with the planner came for a site visit again, our brief was filed september 17th there was filled the first, they said removing the hatch was an accommodation not so on the page 2 they claimed their permit was filed only because of a result of a misunderstanding of the approval of the project sirens this is their perform how do you make this type of mistake they want
4:58 pm
us to trust them without 90s us only because the neighbors are watching the violations have come to the attention of the planning and the commission and this board this same section of the brief tried to work cooperatively with me i've not seen this i've gotten a brief on the wednesday before thanksgiving and a drawing on september 2nd that drawings didn't describe their proposal and asked me to withdraw the appeal and trust them this drawing didn't contain a new permit explaining how they work around the mechanicals was i proposed to trust them in other than admitted understanding and that will be the future building in the neighborhood they stated
4:59 pm
their accommodating the neighbors and now move the mechanicals to the middle of the roof not an accommodation to the neighbors because the got caught the noise level exceeded the legal limit and this e-mail the architect stated that i misunderstood the process many i asked the mechanical units were has nothing to do with to do with heating i live at my home for 27 years never ever experienced problems with others that expand or improved their homes we believe in development a good thing my husband was born here and father-in-law but we need to look at the mechanics how they loam over the house on 465 our request follow the decision of
5:00 pm
planning commission don't permit a health and mass caused by the mechanicals and the assumed wall thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> mr. tuney. >> good evening commissioner president honda and members i'm tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of 3rr8d with me our architect and incarcerating and contractor this process this is a stated - the subject property in 2014 in march of 2016 a complaint concerning the construction of an internal stair lead to the roof we expect it will will
5:01 pm
provide access to the roof deck as the planning commission asked for the removal to provide assess to the mechanical equipment on the roof as a result, it was suspend in may 2016 and the permit holder submitted an application for the permit the permit and plans were reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator and dbi and the permit was issued in august the permit required the removal of interior stair and the placement on a cap to the opening roof and approved the mechanical with the screening on the roof the permit holder has not performed unauthorized work on the roof the air conditioner is on the roof and not operational the interior stair to the roof is removed and the hatch caps this was approved by alexander and stated by a site
5:02 pm
visit the placement of the screening a 4 foot tall kidney slap screening is approved by the zoning administrator and dbi because consistent with the discretionary review approval of the project and fully complies with all applicable codes the noise levels were tested and levels meet the police code from the equipment is located within the center of the roof the adam benefit of reducing the visibility of the equipment on the approved plans the equipment is shown on the west side of the roof so we request that the board approve a modification of the plans to accommodate this new location those reasons we request that you deny the appeal subject to our proposed modification of the plans and again, we're available for any questions you may have
5:03 pm
thank you. >> i have a question. >> yeah. >> this new location in the middle of the roof does that effect the wall. >> which wall. >> the wall that is referred to - and. >> the screening the screening will move with the equipment. >> right but what did that look like from the outside. >> it is horizon cedar slats. >> if you're standing on the ground would you be able to see that. >> it depends on. >> - >> it depends on where you are on 27 street from one angle we provided a photograph the top of the ac equipment where it is moved to the center that is less visible but not seeing the equipment seeing what we anticipate or would like to be a
5:04 pm
more attractive wood screening. >> and it would be the top of that. >> and my question encourage so how is assess going to be achieved to the mechanical at this point. >> we stated in our brief a ladder from the area rear. >> a fixed ladder. >> (inaudible). >> i'm sorry you can't speak but come up to the podium. >> it will be a fixed ladder will you come up and answer that. >> bradygeneral contractor for 27 street
5:05 pm
>> thank you, mr. tuney mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so some projects require a lot more staff time than others for monitoring and enforcement i mean extremely frustrating when we have a deck and get photos from neighbors that shouldn't have to have the responsibility of keeping a watchful eye on projects when i reached out to the property owner project sponsor the stairs were for the access to the mechanical equipment as stated they needed permanent stairs to have access to the mechanical equipment the equipment be to events for the kitchen equipment and the two air conditioning on the roof is not our preferred alternative we
5:06 pm
asked him to locate it elsewhere they said not be possibly to locate it elsewhere it is code compliant with the planning department permits didn't print the structure with the mechanical equipment and others screening and the addition of the mechanical equipment doesn't require an extra notification so this is fully within the boards purview and would respect whatever decision again, this is required quite a bit of staff time of enforcement staff time there is still a structure on the roof if i can have the overhead can i have the overhead? please. this was going to be the roof hatch not shown on the approved plan the plans on appeal have the removal of the stairs not permitted in the first place and
5:07 pm
doesn't show what would have been a hatch no need for this it doesn't provide any access to what we're expecting this to be removed as well it says on the plans there is to be i guess would a flats sheet metal cap i don't know what the purpose if they need in the future to lower an ac unit but they that they'll need a crane but quite a bit of staff time has been involved with this much more than should be required my understanding this is a spec project that will be limthd until completed so we'll see what the board will do on this. >> sorry. >> go ahead. >> go ahead. >> so regarding the 4 feet screening is that considered
5:08 pm
additional massing from the street. >> screening for equipment and the commissions decision prohibited the roof deck so that's what we abated by again i mean not an ideal location for the equipment i think that centered on the roof would be better or in the rear yard but this is w where we're constructing it without the proper permits and that's where it is now. >> okay. >> so what's wrong with the rear yard you know. >> you have to ask the project sponsor i mean, i think at the time maybe 9 run they couldn't get the length of the run out to the equipment and you know maybe they didn't want to diminish the quality of their rear yard and quite a bit staff time is that
5:09 pm
because a the complaint and staff had to work multiple site visits not as simple as we made a mistake a long drawn out process and staff went a back and forth and a considerable amount of staff time addressing the complaint and working with neighbors making sure they're aware of this as well. >> so i guess let me just clarify this so was the staff time because their deliverability out of compliance. >> yeah. yeah, because they built the stairs and the hatch and none of that was on the approved plans. >> whoops. >> you'll have to ask them. >> okay. >> so just to be clear that
5:10 pm
the placement currently the mechanicals that is out is that out of compliance. >> the approved plans didn't have the mechanical equipment or screening on the roof that was added and now this permit corrects that violation by legalizing it it is permit under the planning code and didn't require - it can be - in our opinion didn't violate the commissioned decision it is allowable but this permit legalize something that was started without a permit. >> so you probably won't be able to answer this this smells like serial permitting. >> no work without permit. >> let's put is this way if this would have gone to
5:11 pm
planning commission with that on the roof would that have become an issue in the context of planning commission thoughts about potential massing. >> it could have. >> so this additional permit vague i would seems like somewhat of a - seems convenient that it wasn't brought up at the time the building was being approved i mean normally when you build a building you know where our mechanicals have. >> it is difficult to
5:12 pm
proscribe the motivation could be and the design has not entered a process at sometime oh, we want to put air conditioning in san francisco everyone needs air conditioning maybe that's the reason. >> yeah. but building are built different not as drafty and a as they were air conditioning maybe did tight air conditioning will be a more enjoyable climate but added a structure on the rear yard afterwards as well and things that i don't know it was to avoid commissioner process or if it was just actually like they decided at some point later they'll do that i can't say. >> and final question upon your review do you see it is possible or impossible to
5:13 pm
relocate the mechanicals in the rear yard or at some 09 part of building. >> i mean it is my understanding they can be relocated certainly on the revolver and my understanding the sponsor has offered that to the neighbors but in terms of putting it in the rear yard i'm not a mechanical engineering expert and couldn't say whether or not. >> forgot the feasibility. >> mr. duffy. >> hi commissioners joe duffy dbi just from a building code point of view it does meet code the building code is just to correct something obviously mr. sanchez comments earlier better
5:14 pm
when things are on the original plans not the changes that creates problems and people go ahead sometimes and do them unless their caught we don't see this in this case obviously they were complaints came in and made to correct this i actually drove past the property and took photographs it is visual if 27 street one way or another it is pretty - it is a bulky looking piece of equipment on a nice did a great job on the building and in fact, we signed off on the main permit with the cac we have closed out some of the permits on the project and this will obviously not hoping that the structure on the roof will go down bringing
5:15 pm
it into inclines with the original plan but from the building code point of view it looks fine for the work they're doing. >> sorry did the building does our department have any violations on the property. >> i saw complaints but no notice of violations we got complaints about the stairs the stair with these removed and not issuing a notice of violation the inspector was out there 5 complaints and we've gone out and mentioned about a rear structure was that exceeding 10 by 10. >> the inspector closed that complained. >> no permit no. >> okay. >> so that's what he said. >> thank you. >> yep thank you. >> we can take public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. >> come on and come up if you haven't filed auto a speaker
5:16 pm
card give it to the gentleman that would be great. >> hi good evening i live directly next door at the 465, 27 street and posed the i oppose even though equipment on the roof it is close to my bedroom windows you can see in the pictures here the developers talked about where to place the equipment on the side of the roof but is a instead they choose next to you our bedroom windows and along the property lines he supplement in my bedroom from an illness i thank to my neighbor i wasn't not in a good place to do it and the construction noise was very
5:17 pm
loud i knew that he was temporary the mechanical permits are that time the con deterrences will heat and cool the house and the units will be turn down or turned on all day long we sleep with our windows open and nothing else by the sound will extinguish the quality of life for me and my family please recognize the noise is in violation of the code that was infected to protect our quality of life and anyone can hire a noise expert right under the limit of 50 decimals but it is unnecessary noise i oppose the placement of the equipment because of the 4 foot high screen which is really a wall that is in directly or direct conflict and at the
5:18 pm
hearing commissioner moore stated the roof deck shouldn't be used at all and they went ahead to install the roof roof deck and stairs the planning commission and neighbors agreed to a reasonable building height and massey ask you reject the high wall and unnecessary walls by denying the project in piss e it's location. >> they offered to put it in the middle of the roof did that make a difference. >> i prefer the yard our bedroom windows are still closed. >> does that matter if it is the corner or middle. >> right now on the property line so the middle would be
5:19 pm
better it is not ideal. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> hi, good evening. i'm hi commissioner president honda i'm georgia swedish i live behind and one lot up the hill i filled the complaint mr. duffy talked about not mrs. spelling gal that's a does show what is critical is the complaint that the developers call a misunderstanding i sfield this with planning last march the staircase hatch requires to be removed by the zoning administrator because of the discretionary review decision taken by the planning commission two organs to remove the roof
5:20 pm
deck the findings are clear the commission setback the project 5 feet on the west side for two levels and approximately, six and a half feet wanted to reduce the mass and height at the hearing other developers were opposed to any reduction they needed the square feet for the bedrooms it is possible from the developers will snuff a staircase and still have 3 bedrooms they'll increase the 6 and a half setback and not approved of the increase in height and mass due to the mechanical equipment in the same equipment the placement of the equipment is close to the neighbors and as far away as possible from the developers home on 27 the developers had all summer and fall to move this equipment to the ground the planning department urged them
5:21 pm
to do so even moved into the middle of the roof discussed with the developers this will be a mass on the roof very much like the mass of roof deck the planning commission voted to remove i appreciate the da's decision to order the removal of the hatch the hatch is still there the photos exhibit 7 indicates the staircase the developers state it is gone that may or may not be see depend on ones definition if you look at exhibit 7 can i have the overhead? here's what can be seen first, the entire roof hatch will remain the developer said that was capped not what the da ordered ordered it to be removed it is still there, and, secondly, the photos might appear to show the angles super structure behind the sheetrock
5:22 pm
there it is. >> oh, there it is there and there it is there i'm running out of time i had more to 15i the plan reinforcement was to be included in the section she wasn't can i have two extra seconds. >> finish our thought. >> my thought i wish that was considered the mass eased height had been done they take into account the planning commission they wanted it it be reduced and sculpted given this fact that the rear yard. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you your time is up. >> i know i appreciate it thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm going to use the
5:23 pm
overhead. >> if you need do overhead ask for it. >> good evening my name is michael i'm a 20-year resident of 479, 27 street and a preservation architect 20-year practice i can speak confidently about those issues we live in a quiet area and concerned about this introduced noise and the prelims of the developer trying to that that it was in mirror july about specifically about the volume that those units produce that is 70 d b approximately amount acquit high compared to the
5:24 pm
police code requires the a test was done a weeks ago that confirmed the units are two noisy thus they to meet the police code not the planning code or the building code but to reduce the sound levels we're concerned about filing a huge complaint against the building owners no mechanism in the town to deal with the noise levels before it gets built an oversight oh, you'll notice that this is the the subject property here's teresa houses the developers house at the 455 the units are placed directly on her property line her and her families
5:25 pm
property line and in the rear could have been fine they placed it in the worst place right next to her that's not very nice this is what it looks like today and this is their proposal to raise the wall height like 4 feet again, the most impactful choices they could make as designers they did an acoustical report problems with the report i had an engineer look at it there were no tests for multiple heights the test exposure and try noise walls the enclosure needs to be tested properly
5:26 pm
those there was a misunderstanding about the cooling and heating they noted in their brief they can't put in the rear yard because confident value of the rear yard they're living to use the interior stairs to manage to the roof where a ladder to the roof will be perfectly sufficient so we looked for you to please reconsider this and as the yard have it placed where most reasonable. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is tom, i live on duncan street kitty-corner behind the the subject property the permit holder say the roof placement of the equipment is consistent with the planning commission 2014 dr decision i contend it is not the planning commission was concerned with massing of the rear addition to reduce massing
5:27 pm
eliminated the roof deck that provided for rear and side setbacks now the permit holder is replying this from the planning commission were made aware they have to r they would have massing concerns commissioner moore proposed removing the roof deck concerned with massing her approval was unanimously approved just four months on april 2015 commissioner moore again weighed in on the impact of roof located structures on massing she did so on the 24th street project involving a 5 unit building ncd at that hearing the commissioner quote continue working with the planning department on the roofing
5:28 pm
promotion was approved by the commission if commissioner moore and the matter before you had been made aware of the 4 foot machinery would have a massing problem had a problem with a 5 unit building in a ncd surely a five and six district the permit holder can't deny the roof placements would have been a massing concern in fetus dislikes in. >> any public comment? please. good evening. i'm married to les can i'm here to read. >> a pious of the appellant. >> i'm here to represent a neighbor. >> you can use some of the rebuttal time if that's how she
5:29 pm
wishes. >> is there any additional public comment? >> we have rebuttal now from the appellant. >> we apologize for our ignorance the rebuttal was simply we wanted to read the statement of our neighbor jan who is too ill to be here as the neighbor to the 455 property and what she said they lives on 27 street supports the appeal because the installation of 4 feet height screen around the equipment creates a level and goes beyond the height set by the planning commission she's concerned the placement of the equipment on the roof impact fees that the noise will be broadcast to the whole block and hoping a better location can be put we're asking you to consider
5:30 pm
that and part of the reason we wanted the board to hear this we feel like there are a myriad of issues going on here we have a stair and the capping of the hatch and placements of the mechanicals that are sure to create extra mass and extra noise and also, we have two compressors why two compressors for a single-family for air conditioning we've for the seen that everything so, so excess and so contrary quite frankly we live if a very, very peaceful neighborhood in noah valley we have trees and hear birds we don't hear mechanical equipment and it is your own and feel blessed and grateful to live in this situation and we really ask you to please consider what was
5:31 pm
already necessary and desirable by the planning commission and to let us keep your neighborhood in the peace and harmony i didn't we've all experienced in the open space thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. tuney. >> thank you a couple of points as to the massing and the planning commission concerns i think we all know with the roof deck massing really can be mitigated by something like the glass railing what we find i find the greater concern is the activity on the roof and privacy concerns you got people up on the roof looking down on neighbors and just general activity of people there the massing of the mechanical
5:32 pm
units the photograph was misleading can be absolutely minimized by moving to the center of the roof one more point to the location a lot has been said why they were placed the contractor can speak to it we wanted to have solar panels as well on the roof and near the blowers lout we'll for go the panels to move to the center and absolutely willing to remove the wooden structure on top of and the purpose of having alexander out for a site visit happy to move that and we ask the new center location be approved by the board this is a reasonable compromise. >> mr. tuney why are you
5:33 pm
keeping the cap. >> it was easier construction wise to cover it that's with the zoning administrator required but we can cover that and finish it in my way the zoning administrator requires. >> i mean because i'm a little bit cleveland the direction although this is a notable hearing was pretty clear on no more - after the project sponsor was caught doing something they shouldn't have done the. >> penicillin get close to the next door neighbor by the way, could have put them on his side where his home is; correct? >> the contractor can explain that they were purposing put near the blowers to the kitchen vents and put to the side to allow for the solar panels but could, put to the other side.
5:34 pm
>> and little other question for the heating and cooling. >> just for air conditioning our experts can explain. >> the last question is what options have you given to looking them in the location to the rear yard i'll have our contractor answer that. >> he can come up. >> so two questions one. >> yes. >> why were the air conditioning units placed on the complete opposite side near the property away from the project sponsor, please. >> own personal residence as because the blowers and we needed more space for the solar panels and what have you done in
5:35 pm
looking at why not feasible to have the air-conditioning unit in the rear yard. >> the rear yard it present a challenge in terms of 6 just the feasibility of getting them back there this is an additional cost not performing better and as far as the usability of the yard that makes them less usable since we can't use the roof we decided to locate them there. >> just a comment from me those are substantial air conditioners unit and let me finish my comment i design my own house with quite a bit of heating and it is large i have the option to add the ac units but live in san francisco so we kind of have built in air conditioners. >> i have to ask the contractor about that specification i was not in charge of the decision the whole house is air conditioned i
5:36 pm
believe that's the reason for two of the. >> i'm sorry you're the architect. >> yeah. >> i will ask the same question tote counselor why is capped and not permanently closed. >> my decisions what we've discussed with the planner alexander curby and the zoning administrator it says cap this portion of the roof 0 it was a miss findings we capped that because this was the most easy and not having to rip up the roofing as we said we're willing to remove you know come into guidance with whatever the da said and the neighbors want. >> okay. thank you. >> my name is bryan i'm the architect. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department.
5:37 pm
won't go into too much more they confirmed the stairs were removed i'll show the photo of the master bedroom closet area where the stairs were an angle there and they kept the gun try but walled it off otherwise above it. >> do you think they can put stairs back there easily. >> this is where the stairs come out here so they have the return there the return air but, yeah i mean, i was a little bit surprised they especially\choose to take more space out of the master bathroom, and closest area but you know they said they've spent $10,000 on the cabinets that went under the stairs not preliminary that's why they didn't want to keep it for our purposes as long as the
5:38 pm
stairs are not there and no way to assess the roof that would be compliant a surprise to me they didn't more - want to use that says that a bit more. >> but anyway, that's the choice they've made and certainly in terms of we required that roof assess to be removed and do it in the most cost effective way but the elevations don't show in any extension anything above the curve so the plans approved will be a flat cap on it so that should be clear and i'm glad we can clear that up this evening i did notice on the specs for the air conditioning units the carrier 200 and 50 foot length
5:39 pm
on the run so there are different variables in terms of how high i'm not an mechanical engineer but flexibility and sounds like the architect says it would be feasible in the rear yard. >> i have one last question so since the planning department enforcement has removed the hatch and the scars stairs what's the process or stopping the new buyer er the person that owns this highway for getting an over-the-counter permit for the staircase. >> the condition that remains on the planning commission decision. >> so there's something that will be on the - >> i mean is it a deed restriction. >> not recorded at the as deed restriction but whatever action you take could be a memorial
5:40 pm
losing even though condition as a notice of special restrictions on the property title to make sure that is a tremendous point the future property owners need to be aware thought that condition to avoid. >> the concern i don't mind they keep cabiny. >> and this is a over-the-counter and wouldn't be fair to the new property owners. >> thank you. >> okay inspector duffy nothing commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i initiation i'll start slightly troubled that the department has spent so many hours in particular case a
5:41 pm
general indicates some non-coordination i'm concerned that the roof is capped and that the staircase is suspicious of being put back in to be honest i'll prefer if the - the. >> penicillin were in the backyard if this is where they are and code compliant i'm fine with that my thoughts thinking out loud that the hatch would be permanently closed and the cap removed and as mention by the the da memorializing the notice of special restrictions no staircase to the roof. >> that will be in the middle and the appliance is moved to the middle of the property. >> any comment that will be my
5:42 pm
motion. >> make a motion already. >> well, i don't know i am troubled i'm not sure that your suggestion is enough given the history i don't see why it can't be put into the back i'm not sure i can vote for that option. >> okay. >> what would yours be commissioner. >> mine would be a bit extreme i'm not sure i'm prepared to do that yet and as the department said the board of appeals has widening and broader powers. >> commissioner swig i. >> i lien towards commissioner wilson wow.
5:43 pm
>> the cap is no the cap as required by the planning commission absolutely i'll accept the execution suggestion of the zoning administrator or the consideration that the zoning administrator raised that the appearance in the future of a staircase be for bibidden tha not a screen that's a wall the flies directly in the planning commission intent that shouldn't have a tower on top of the roof. >> we - >> so but i look at the findings of the planning commission so i'll recommend
5:44 pm
and, and machinery could be moved it is feasible to move the machinery to the backyard so i would kind of move the machinery to the backyard and make sure that cap was not a cap that was sealed and put a restriction on the stairway. >> i'll go for that. >> we're the famous words you'll find out. >> wyoming you like. >> no objection. >> make the motion. >> to uphold the appeal; right? and condition that one the cap that is on the roof to be permanently removed and to i guess finish it like a roof without an assess point.
5:45 pm
>> to also condition or memorialize a restriction no staircase to the roof going forward. >> and that the relocation of the hearts and what have you been relocated to the rear of the property and okay. >> so with the notice of special restrictions i'm one or more if you want to specific the language for the n s r something that the zoning administrator agrees to that - and correct. >> we don't have language before us it is important that we have something clear. >> we'll let scott speak to that. >> the removal of cap on the hatch. >> or the hatch to be removed and the roof to be. >> finished. >> finished is that the proper
5:46 pm
language. >> i just want to make sure that whatever we decide it something that is clear to the enforcement agencies that language works for you both and finally the relocation of the mechanicals into the rear yard is specific enough okay. >> and that's on the basis of commissioner president honda. >> yes. >> we need a basis. >> the basis at that the roof materials is unsighting creates additional massing in from the street level. >> to grant the appeal and uphold it be revised to require the recording of a notice of
5:47 pm
special restrictions by the language for the zoning administrator pribtd a stair to the roof, the patch to be removed and the cap to be removed and the roof to be finished and finally that the mechanical equipment be relocated to the backyard. >> correct. >> and on that motion then commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson commissioner swig. >> thank you, commissioners that motion carries and there's no further business. >> than
5:48 pm >> neighborhoods and san francisco as exists and fascist as the people that i think inhabitable habit them the bay area continues to change for the better as new start up businesses with local restaurants and nonprofit as the collaborative spaces the community appeal is growing too.
5:49 pm
>> what anchors me to the community i serve is a terminal connection this is the main artery of the southeast neighborhood that goes around visitacion valley and straight down past the ball park and into the south of market this corridor the hub of all activity happening in san francisco. >> i'm barbara garcia of the wines in the bayview before opening the speculation we were part of bayview and doing the opera house every thursday i met local people putting their wares out into the community barbara is an work of a symbol how the neighborhood it changing
5:50 pm
in a a positive way literally homemade wine that is sold in the community and organized businesses both old and new businesses coming together to revitalizes this is a yoga studio i actually think be able a part of community going on in the bayview i wanted to have a business on third street and to be actually doing that with the support of community. >> how everybody reasons together to move each other forward a wonderful run for everybody out here. >> they're hiring locally and selling locally. >> it feels like a community effort. >> i was i think the weather is beautiful that is what we can
5:51 pm
capture the real vibe of san francisco i love it i can go ongoing and on and on about the life in the.
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and
5:55 pm
dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to
5:56 pm
contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco >> if you frequently travel before i van ness i might be surprised van ness will goodwill go the first transit corridor to have brt as more frequently known the goal to get conveniently van ness and geary boulevard one of the most reliable transit systems in the country van ness avenue is a major connecter between potrero hill and mission on the south side of san francisco correcting connecting us to the marina and
5:57 pm
state highway in the financial with the western edition neighborhood it is mostly residential a lot of the geography of van ness the rain that is wide it was uses is a firebreak in the 1906 san francisco earthquake a lot of building occasion that helped of hoped to stop the fire from jumping van ness had a light rail or sprash separating and along geary 0 when we came to the question of how to address the needs on haven because of its cost effectiveness we have found in the brt system with the new vehicles. >> the new mr. secretary is a change we will actually have transit in the middle ♪ the far legal unit and a broadly prom >> one of the reasons it is in the center a was it is an clouf
5:58 pm
right-of-way a set of pedestrians will cross from the sidewalk to the middle of the street a. >> to move the reliable along the corridor with this travel time had been signifying reduced we think the ripped will go from 16 thousand a day in that portion the corridor up to 22 thousand and we'll have those beautiful new one like this one. >> with the dedication of the signal and lighter saying that between stops we were able to estimate a .32 improvement in travel time and a 50 percent reliability improvement as a result. >> we're pitting u putting in a up to date modern system of new thirty foot high light fixtures and pedestrian lights on the same pole again inviting
5:59 pm
a comfortable environment for pedestrians. >> it has become a 3 dimensional street project. >> the water that is my understanding under the ground and the emergency firefighting water system month will be replaced and new street lights and traffic lights and the paving and stripping the trees both in the medium and on the side. >> the main core of the project goes from market it lombard that's where we'll be replying the sidewalks. >> there are a number of trees that need to be replaced
6:00 pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission for wednesday, december 7, 2016. i would like to remind the audience that we do not tolerate any outburst at this time. i would like to take roll. commissioner wolfram, commissioner hyland, commissioner johnck,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on