tv Board of Appeals 41917 SFGTV April 22, 2017 1:05pm-3:16pm PDT
>> >> [gavel] >> good evening welcome to the april 19, 2017 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. presiding officer's board president darrell honda and joined tonight by vp frank fung commissioner lazarus,, commissioner wilson commissioner rick swig. gary container is at the control he's the board's legal assistant i'm cynthia goldstein executive director. were joined tonight by the city departments. sitting at the table in front is corey- aassistant zoning administrator and also representing the planning department. i expect
will be joint shortly by joseph duffy representing the department of building inspection the board request you silence all phones and other electronic devices so though not disturb the proceedings and we ask you carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules are as follows. >> people affiliate with these parties must include their comments within seven or three minute permit good members the public are not affiliated with the parties of up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please, speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the acrid preparation of minutes were asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card when you come up to speak. speaker cards are viable on the podium for your convenience. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions and we have customer satisfaction surveys on the podium for your use. if you have questions
about requesting a hearing the board's rules or hearing schedule speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting were call or visit the board office. we are located at 16 mission st. in room 304 that's between dubois street and s. van ness ave. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv cable channel 78 and rebroadcast on friday at 4 pm on channel 26. dvds of the meeting are viable for purchase from sfgov tv. now we will swear in or from all those who attend to testify please, note any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights. if you intend to testify at tonight's proceedings. and have the board give you the board give it evidential weight please swear. do solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth, nothing but the truth. thank
you very much. pres. honda we have one housekeeping item tonight. appeal number 17-028 which involves a permit at 435 marina blvd. should that matter has been withdrawn and will not be hurt. the first item on the counter is public commons. general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone to speak to the board on a matter within the board's subject matter jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. >> so the response brief in my case, 17-13 written by margaret bumgardner city attorney's office had no evidence to support her claim. rebecca krill of the arts commission lied under oath in the statement that she read as a response.. the street arts program is not conducted studio
visits in two years. there is evidence from the public information officer. they said they conduct monthly studio visits. it goes on and on. they never responded to calls or emails. i don't know why they can get away with standing up here and lying to you about things that i am supposed to have done which i did not do. and with no evidence to support their claims. i think the public trust has been eroded by backroom politics and misconduct. this morning i listened to a california court of appeal first district case it was a bayview hunters point arts coalition against the arts commission. which is almost identical to my case here. it
was a-the arts commission community arts trust refusing to process applications based on personal biases of the staff. so everything that was said against me is false. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other general public comment? seeing none, we will move on to item 2 which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> no. >> okay. seeing none, will move to item 3 which is the consideration of the april 5, 2017 minutes. >> unless there's any changes deletions may have a motion? >> so moved. >> thank you any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. on a motion fung aye honda aye wilson aye swig
aye. that motion carries 5-0. next item on the counter is item for appeal number 17-004 scott and patricia quinn versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval section 14 party 2320 08-2330 north point st. protesting the issuance on november 7, 2016 to northpoint and baker partners to add to 13 feet 2" x 25' by one story at rear one story and top altar shape of western light will at ground in a large eastern light will move deck over 15 feet front setback over top a new story internal b configuration. the jurisdiction was granted on january 11, 2017 and a public hearing was held on march 22 on january 11, 2017 and a public hearing was held on march 22, 2017. the matter was continued to allow commissioner lazarus to participate and i seem commissioner, you rude the materials ps i have bethink you
so much. my understanding of the parties however if this matter has been settled in the board-the parties would like to ask you to consider the adoption of revised plans reflecting elements of that agreement. >> okay. i need still need to make a disclosure >> please >> i wish to disclose of hired rubin-on the project i represent. rubin representation of the entity appeared before this board this evening will not have any effect on my decision. >> so we can invite the parties to come up to confirm their agreement and commissioners, you should have with you a copy of an email i received from the section 14 parties was unable to attend tonight but did confirm that she's an agreement and once we hear from the parties we can also accept the revised plan to the record. >> welcome speeding members of the board. tom tony rubin junius and roast on behalf of
the permit holder and we have reached a settlement. we've agreed to a project revision they are set forth in this revised plan.. we would like to submit that. were happy to talk about any of the changes if you're interested andi guess i will allow the appellant to speak and confirm this if that would be appropriate. >> thank you my name is scott quinn i am the appellant's. we have thoroughly reviewed the plant and were very supportive of the project moving forward. we would also like to note the other party that was involved in this activity deanna mistral shared an email with cynthia goldstein which hopefully hopefully you have a copy of it she's quite supportive of it as well so we recommend we move forward with the project documented in the plans. thank you. >> thank you. >> can you briefly summarize what those changes are? >> we reduced-we changed-we
reduced the floor area of the rear extension at the first level. so we brought it in from the back 5'6" and widened it to the property lines, and then filled in the light well on the queens side,, so that provided the floor area that was lost in the rear extension. then we slope to the roof of the fourth floor and added a 10 foot balcony off of the fourth floor pop up above the third floor. facing the street. >> the rear deck that was on top of the extension? >> that was reduced along with
the floor below in terms of depth, but it will stay-was pulled in 5 feet on either side and that will remain. we have agreed to planters on each side of that for privacy as well. >> thank you. >> okay. if you have those plans then you can provide them to mr. ken tara and i just want to invite the department's. i don't know if mr. keever for mr. duffy anything to add? >> good evening present honda and commission good great teak planning to barman staff. i did get a chance to look over the proposed revisions. they still meet the planning code department raised at the last hearing was that if the ground-floor unit was reduced by more than 25% it would be considered a merger and would
require a conditional use authorization that's not being proposed here based on the trade-off you heard he the only thing i would put out here is that that interior light well did provide an additional amount of light into that ground-floor unit. so that has been an issue with the planning commission has been looking at more thoroughly on projects when they are moved when the unit is moved to the rear and lower floors to the overall quality of the unit. just to make you aware that is the trade-off being made it it's not an issue of code compliance but just general policy in terms of the quality that other unit but otherwise the proposed revisions are code compliance. >> planning verify the open space requirement for the unit? [inaudible / off mic] >> correct. there is adequate space. >> okay. >> joe duffy dbi. i did email
mr. tony today. the headroom clearance we need to be 80 inches when they're slipping the roof. that was the only thing i needed to point out. then if they're losing some light there was still need to comply with title 24 requirements. so we would like to remind them of that point as well. that's all we have two offer. >> thank you. >> i think you all can sit down at this point and i'll see if there's any public comment on this item? seeing none, and commissioners the matter is yours. >> commissioners? >> i would move to grant the appeal and on the basis of the revised plan submitted to the board today. >> is that on the basis reflects the agreement on the parties? yes >> thank you we have a motion
to commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal. issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to reflect the plan submitted today and that's on a basis that reflects the agreement of the parties. >> should we include the recommendation of dbi and tagged thatsubject to title 24 compliance, or is that a given >> that's given >> okay. >> i was just wondering whether we should really reiterate that regulation or not >> on a motion fung aye honda aye wilson aye swig trent. that motion passes with a vote of 5-0. we will move on to item 5 appeal we will move on to item 5 appeal number 1717-027 philip and kristin springs in bursa department of building inspection with planning to barman approval with section 14 party tracy lynn. property is
at 60 russell st. protesting the issuance on february 6, 2017 to fill and kristin springs in of a site permit to add two stories to an existing one-story single-family residence at new balcony to rear infiltrates in path on westside and infill tree small light wells replace foundation, extensive interior remodel and new garage with two-car mechanized stacked parking at new driveway with curb cut ray's rear yard replace deck at solar panels and this is on the hearing today so we will start with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome >> good evening before i'd like to present information before the board for consideration. >> as far as? >> it's a copy of the document already in the record. it's the planning department hearing on june 16. >> okay. you can give it to gary there but you can use it in your as far as visuals in your notes. >> can i please ask sfgov tv put the camera onto the visual display and leave it there so the board members see our
visuals as we present them. >> thank you. >> good evening president honda and members of the board.the question before you concerns a matter only 16 inches vertically 36 inches horizontally. we are asking the board to reverse changes to our future home by these amounts. has the benefit of the small distances to those outside the building are insignificantwhile the burden of those inches inside the building to us are severe. our appeal is based on two arguments. one, the change to the plan to barman and planning commission are not appropriate and two, the procedural errors by the planning department made their changes a violation of due process. as i presented i like to keep three things in mind that each illustrated with a picture. first,the extreme height difference between us and the properties on union street is seen here. second, the setback from our property
buildings on russell street. beginning with height, the first thing to note is the building is fully compliant and never approach the maximum 40 foot height. on face, no changes to i should've been necessary at all. most buildings on russell street are not 40 feet high of course but in exhibit 6 of our brief you saw that most were all about the same height as our project. three stories, most over a garage about 30 feet high. thus, the height we request as a code complaint it's in character. next, the allies of the three buildings behind this union street the shortest is 12 feet not inches, above the highest point of our parapets. it's harder, still above our roof in any level of our floors in the other two buildings are even higher than that. with these buildings been so much harder than our project one has to ask, how can a shorter building cause a harm?
finally, consider the relative value of height inside versus outside. the sum of all changes by the department and commission was only 16 inches. from the outside, can you notice a difference between a 33-4 and 32-to building walking down the street? either up the blocker next to it i doubt not. in contrast if i lower the height of the ceiling even an inch or two you'll immediately notice. furthermore the plants recommend have a height reduction at the rear of 24 inches over the original plan more than all the changes recommended for reversal. we volunteer that 24 inches based on labor input and it does not take away from our living space. next let's consider setback. our project fits entirely within the footprint of the existing building. although our lot is small and we could have variance we chose to stay within the footprint. this means we have a 16.5 separate with only 15 is required. this was our choice to be good neighbors and respect the existing size of the building. second and most
important, our second floor the one closest to our neighbors, at the same level as their basements when the planning commission set this floor back an additional 3 feet they were taking space away from our living room and dining room to provide greater privacy for neighbors basements you consider that semen and what it represents. we cannot be a great city if we give greater priority to basements them into living rooms and dining rooms. only in our third floor is the project the same level as the living space as others that's where were provided extra 10 feet of setback. in this light, the changes by the commission to little bit if i take a step back 18 inches and you still see me or hear me any different? the changes by the commission do not address the problem that itself does not exist. compared to the minimal impact the additional setbacks are severe on us 3 feet on the second floor means our dining room cannot accept the normal dining table or living room
cannot accept a normal couch separate will not be able to gather our entire family around for thanksgiving dinner. the additional 18 inches on the third floor has equal impact. the room to be our nursery into been so small and unusual shape there's no room for changing table and creams for both of our twins. the same logic applies to the terrace. outdoor living space is at a premium in russian hill. willing setbacks of a few feet are usually required when a railing comes right up to a lot line. when ours already starts 16.5 feet there's no need for further setback. >> the true problem with the commission's changes comes when you consider the height and setback issues together. look at this diagram. the current rear of our building is just over 15 feet high. now, look at what the planning commission approved. the height in this location is now just 166 inches, or just under 14 feet. that means the commission took away 79.8 ft.3 of livable space from the existing building envelope.
took away. this is beyond backwards. the dr process february how much we can add to i'm not take space away from a small structure that is not only grandfathered but compliant. we ended up your i really don't know. but there is truly no justification for leaving us unable to use part of the house that we started with. finally, let's address the light well. a picture is worth 1000 words here. i'm not sure i can explain the situation better than the diagrams in exhibit 9 and 10 of our brief. the light will proposed will provide more light to our neighbor at 64 russell st. then it receives now. taking living space to deepen is not justified. our second line of arlene is some of the plan to punch you not make changes after they had already reviewed her plants and formally approve them. here, you see the residential design and review conducted after discretionary review. it clearly states that the project is recommended and there are no
changes that need to be made. can we have the thing we just gave you? it clearly states the project is recommended no changes that need to be made. the planning department demonstrated position public with the planning commission it's harmful not only for us but all residents of the city of decisions on record by the city agency can be reversed on a whim. this violation of due process is an error in abuse of discretion. should be reversed. before i conclude, i want to review all the changes that we already made to the project. this list shows multiple changes made from early2015 until july 2016 for multiple parties. highlighted changes were made in direct response to exhibits to requests included in this brief of exhibit were requesting on the changes be reversed. i mention this to highlight we are not seeking to circumvent either of the planning process or the interest of our neighbors. only
seeking to reverse the changes that an undue burden on us were providing negligible or nonexistent benefit to others.thank you very much for your time today. >> thank you. >> maybe we can hear from section 14 party,, ms. luke? >> good evening and welcome >> hello. how are you guys? if you can leave the projector on i would appreciate it. good evening everyone. my name is tracy luke. i live at 64 russell st., which is the neighboring property. while i am the only discretionary review filer that's been granted the opportunity tonight this is a culmination of not just my dr but of dr's surrounding neighbors in neighborhood association on the
planning commission thoughts over basically a two-year period. i personally, have and continue be supportive of the appellant's request to redevelop their home.. however i and the other neighbors felt was appropriate and fair to us twice for certain modifications that would respect our light air and privacy. as well as the character and the context of our history. the key concerns about the project really revolve around height mass and façade. to be specific, they include negatively impacting the light air and privacy particularly of the union street neighbors. makes little effort to russell street context. the reduction of the light well is going to reduce the visibility of my home. fourth, the installation of the car stuck or has a permanent impact on not only my home on russell street. keep in mind, russell street is a single keep in mind, russell street is a single lane alley, street small homes on small lots and
potential historic district. the average height and the buildings here is under 25 feet , and no building on this block face exceeds 30 feet. the subject site itself, the site not the building, is under 1200 ft.2 and at the rear the existing building is just six and hundred feet away from the union street folks. given the appellant's requested some changes were unwilling to entertain modifications that some in a meaningful manner. neighbors sought resolution to the planning commission via the dr process. over two hearings multiple compromises on our requests we ultimately proposed various ways and suggestions they could try to accommodate our needs and we felt and continue to believe that some of the suggestions we made could have worked for everybody. these include, lowering the height of the building by one story or at least no less than 3 feet. eliminate the stacker mechanism
to maintain existing stacker light well from around the roof. setback the second story by 5 feet and a third story by 1.5 feet and eliminate the third story deck. we made a number of suggestions for achieving a lower building including slipping the façade so that the garage was on the uphill side. this would allow for raised entry in the lower garage level, both are traits with the neighboring homes and were in the original residential design team guidelines and recommendations. the appellant chose not to implement the suggestion or others including eliminating the stacker utilizing the significant basement floor space that they're not utilizing. ultimately, without meaningful efforts to lower the height by the appellant the planning commission moved to impose specific height reductions. at the end, the outcome of the planning commission i think left everyone having to compromise.. in some way
feeling dissatisfied but it was a compromise that we all had to make. it impose the following conditions. one, reduce the overall height of the building by reduction of the stairs and parapet. extend the now aligned light well, not stacker to match the bottom of my light well. three and four setback the top floor by 1.5 feet and the second floor by 3 feet. from our perspective we do not think the outcome went far enough to basically meet the residential design guidelines or even meet our original request or amended request halfway. however, the neighbors and myself spent the planning process and the commissioners decision and we agreed to follow and abide by that. we also felt appeal on our part would not be helpful and in fact would harm any kind of conciliatory process or efforts with the permit holders going forward. since the
planning commission's decision we have not heard from the appellant despite various attempts to reach out concerning sidewalk plans were my request to inspect the sidewalls prior to construction which is ultimately going to result in a 0° lot line. given the silence we were surprised to learn that on february 13 the appellant fired the appeal only one week after getting the building site permit. based on their brief, we see no basis for the appeal beyond the fact they did not get what they were requested. there appeal effectively seeking to negate the planning commissions unanimous decision. it also will avoid two years of process that we went through in order to arrive at that decision. what they are requesting is to increase the height by 9 inches, traverse the commissions clear requirements to lower the building height via the reduction of stairs and the parapet. third, to expand
the third floor deck by moving railings help by 2 feet on all three sides. again this is the deck the union street folks want to remove in entirety. extend the second and third floors to the rear by 3 feet and 1.5 feet respectively. again this february requirements and results in a lower union street unit, which are habitable. the we deliver directly looking into the russell street wells and where they would've had either 19.5 feet, or 26.5 feet difference in space between the buildings, there now can be down to 16.5 feet on all levels. finally, there also requesting to raise the floor of the new smaller and matched light well not a separate light well to my window ceiling. the commission's directive was clear to match the size and of my light well from floor to roof. this itself is a significant compromise as a cause for maintaining the existing staggered light well
which is large but the now aligned light well is substantially smaller moved to the north producing the sunlight to my home in will look directly into my bathroom. one commissioner, in fact rackley commented raising the floor of their light well to my window ceiling would in effect create a closed feeling. it'll be like living in a tenement. talking with the removal of one vanity in order to, this request is frustrating. we oppose the appellant's request in its entirety. further, the plans provided by the appellant as exhibit 1 were incomplete. there were no site plans or floorplans and they did not include the issued plans at all. it's making it hard for us, the neighbor said i was in yourselves, to make any comparison or comparison. >> thank you your time is up. >> please, uphold the planning commission. thank you. >> thank you. >> maybe we can hear from mr.
keene.. >> i'm sorry, we have the zoning administrator next. if you want to speak under public comment, if that's what you're thinking you can come later. >> thank you. good evening again. corey take for planet apartment staff. the subject building permit for the addition and renovation of 60 russell st. was submitted in november 2014 the permit was reviewed extensively by the permit staff including the residential design team or rdt. after requested revisions from that apartment staff determine the project was consistent with the planning code in residential design guidelines for the rdt at that time. liver notification for the permit commenced on december 1,
2015 and two separate requests for discretionary review or, dr, were filed during the notification period. subsequent to dr five in the project was reviewed again by the rdt found to be consistent with the rdt.the project reviewed by the planning commission was in interior and exterior remodel of an existing one-story structure with on habitable space below along with a two-story vertical addition infilling of the existing path on the west side of the building three small light wells. adding a new curb cut and garage with a two-car mechanized parking stacker. adding a real balcony raising the grade of the rear yard to match the neighboring properties grade replacing the existing wooden deck in the rear yard. the project was analyzed pursuant to planning codes definition for de facto demolition as well. the project was determined to be a de facto demolition and would require conditional use authorization from the planning commission. calculations were near code limit. the project did not meet the definition of the factual militiamen the planning commission held the first dr
hearing on june 21 22nd after much discussion at the hearing was consensus on the commission that additional revisions to the project were necessary to radically respond to the somewhat unique context of the immediately surrounding area. therefore complied with the rdt. as such the case was continued to july 14, 2016 12 the project sponsor to continue to work with the dr requester and other neighbors and submit a revised proposal. after that hearing that apartment staff conducted a site visit along with project architect and an architect secured by the dr requesters and subsequently the project sponsor then propose the following revisions. reduce the height of the building by .6 inches at the rear and 9 inches at the front and reduction of the rear parapet. eliminate the rear balcony of the second floor. reduce the glazing on the rear façade. lower the west light well to the 2'5" to match
the height of the neighboring light well. at the windowsill. provide a 2 foot setback on the third for garter belt on all sides and replace glass guardrails with open guardrails. the second scheduled dr hearing was also continued however due to the late summation of the revised materials. the final dr hearing occurred on august 14, 2016 and at that time, after much additional discussion again, the planning commission voted unanimously with one member absent to take discretionary review and revise the project that follows. to reduce the overall height of the building by reduction of the stair and parapet extend the light well to match the bottom of the adjacent light well, setback the top floor 1'5" at the rear, and setback the middle floor 3 feet at the rear. on october 28, 2016 the plaintiff armen approved the associated site permit as revise for the planning commissions dr action subsequent revision to the act was approved on december on october 28, 2016 the plaintiff armen approved the associated site permit as revise for the planning commissions dr action subsequent revision to the act was approved on on october 28,
2016 the plaintiff armen approved the associated site permit as revise for the planning commissions dr action subsequent revision to the act was approved on december 27, 2016 and the permit was then issued by the permanent building inspection on february 6, 2017. the permit holder and the adjacent property owner then filed their appeals which are the item before you today. just to touch briefly on the issue of due process. i do understand it can be a little confusing sometimes with a process when a project is-the plaintiff armen recommends to the planning commission approval when the staff reviews determine staff's opinion the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines are however, that is a recommendation. the planning commission has the ultimate discussion in terms of interpreting the residential design guidelines and they have the authority to take our recommendation, or to modify the project beyond that. which, is not a terribly uncommon event to occur for the planet apartment to make a recommendation and the planning commission to make additional revisions to a project, but
again ultimate planning commission they are the overseers of this review process and they have the ultimate discussion on interpretation of the design residential design guideline. beck includes my presentation. i am available for questions.. also considering none of the detailed nature and long history of the project muscle joint by jeff joslin, rector of the plaintiff armen's current planning division to provide additional insight into the design review of this project if needed. thank you. >> i'm going to pick your brain a little bit. >> sure. >> as mentioned bythe dr requester, there's no floorplans, no site plans. the photos have noorientation that can put in terms of looking at the area. where they are directed from i've no idea. >> you mean the plans in the appellant's brief
>> it's difficult for me to determine for either side whether there was an impact or not. so a couple of questions for you, one of the section shows the union street building directly adjacent to the lot is almost a zero property line? the rear wall >> correct. >> how about the other buildings on union street? >> i can grab a copy the plans of the actual building >> it would've been helpful for us to have it ourselves.
>> you've done that before? >> i've assistance here. so from the site plan that's included in the plans including the dearing dr hearings in the building permit come all three immediately adjacent properties and building to the rear on union street have practically up to the property line. >> the extension on the left side of the subject property, what is that? >> what is the height of that? >> what is it? >> what is it in terms of motion portion of the building?
in terms of how to use it internally? >> yes. >> that's a good question. the neighbor may be able to as the answer that better than i can. >> okay. >> commissioner would you look to take a look at those plans? >> no. i will state right now i'm can have a hard time making my decision without the appropriate materials. >> we can take public comment. may see a show of hands of how may people plan to speak on the public comment? what i would ask you to do is please, right up on the far side of the room. if not rob to speak card if you could do so and fill it out while you wait to speak in hand up to mr. ken tara when you handed,. that would be healthy but the first person can come to the microphone. whoever wants to speak first, please, step four. >> i do have materials which i intend to put on theelmo if the
board would like copies of them i prepared copies of them for the parties as a all >> it's up to you as a member of the public you can submit whatever you want. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is brendan bradley and i speak you're in favor of the sprit since appeal. i want to provide a few matters, a few issues of background which i think will inform the board's decision. i want to make you aware of some history on the project. ms. luque included in her exhibit 1 a >> have you represented the
permit holder? >> no. i'm here as a concerned citizen. in that capacity only. >> please, continue >> miss luken included in her exhibit a seven-point plan which using sine. she says this was submitted in written medication to the planning commission but ashley was the other dr requester mr. roeser who did so. here, you see the same list in an email from mr. roeser dated three days after the first planning commission hearing and at the hearing this was presented during public comment like by kathleen courting. so what did mr. luke and request before the hearing? you see mr. luke's actual written argument. you will see the-ms. luke's actual written
argument that you will see her a note requesting for the setback at the front and reduce the, quote, new addition or there's no reference to the light well or the parking issues which now become the issue in the case. here is mr. roeser's [inaudible] one-story addition or renovation of the existing envelope.. in other words no project at all. there's no reference to windows railing or setback. and there's two reasons that this is important. first, the dr requester is a deception advancing the case in relation to the initial hearing and they were held their true with the guns from the spartans for over six months. prior to the hearing. is may the spartans look bad and inhibited their ability to present their case at the initial hearing because neighbors could say that they did not respond to the list of concerns. in addition, this is not in keeping with the spirit of the dr process and the sprit since it should not be punished
for it. finally, this chart shows the amount of time each party spoke during the seven-point plan discussions. at the first hearing the dr requester mr. courtney, had 17 minutes. the spartans spoke for 12 minutes. but none about the seven-point plan a plan they never seem to the spaces were prepared to give their case at the secondhand but the planning department change its mind at the time and didn't allow either side to speak and the third hearing the commission limited speaking time it did not allow rebuttal. this led to a situation where the spartans have been allowed to speak for three minutes and the opposing parties for 23 minutes. this a complete imbalance and deprives the commission of the ability to hear all the facts on this case. >> >> thank you >> next speaker, please.
>> welcome.. >> i would like to use the overhead. thanks. good evening members of the board. miami's frank griffith i want [inaudible] for privacy. the proposed project has very generous setbacks. this diagram shows the project in relation to the allowed building [inaudible] the green area shows allowable building area those not use include a minimum setback of 16.5 feet. we're only 15 is required. the third floor setback is setback 25 feet. the entire terrace is inside the allowed building envelope. even though per code allows terraces can be outside. this is significant because no other inhabited building on russell street even has a minimum setback let alone extra distance. the proposed project goes out of its way in this regard. mother [inaudible] mentioned 60.5 feet the actual distance from the project to
adjacent home is much greater. yet these buildings are so much higher.on this diagram the actual distances to neighboring windows is up to 33 feet from the second level of the project. for 1243 and 1257 union, the closest windows are lease 21 feet away and most are further. this is between lots only 20 feet wide and 60 feet deep given the site constraints this is more than enough of a setback. but there's more. the second floor of the project is at the basement level adjoining homes. this means that the planning commission took away space from a living room to give privacy to a basement. this is putting storage of boxes before people and that is wrong. only the first floor on union street at the level of the project third floor. the third floor is already set back further by 25
feet. more important, there should be no expectation of privacy on the first floor of any building. on platte ground the first floor is level with your neighbors yard. the city would not let our neighbor build a fence on your yard to keep you away from their first floor. the setback to the third floor in the terrace are equivalent to the fence. the union street property should not get preferential treatment for their first floor is just because there up the hill. most egregious, the second floor setback takes away existing building space. here is a planning commission's requirement sent over the existing building scale. in red you can see the portion of an existing building now outside with the content commission allows you to limit the size of the expansion is one thing to take away existing building volume is outrageous. i hope you agreed the unnecessary setbacks to this project must be reversed. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening and welcome
>> my name is andy step you good evening pres. honda and members of the board. i am a concerned citizen and also a resident of the surrounding russian hill neighborhood. there's a lot of concern about the height of the project. but in fact the height of the project, given the neighborhood is really completely reasonable. the planning code allows for maximum height of 40 feet. the building request is only 33'4" which is well below the maximum. there's been no real objective standard for judgingwhy this building has been stated to be too tall. knowing the board [inaudible] along with the justification should be less than code, were less than the project. many people upset this will be the tallest building on the street. but not-there's many buildings that are tall on every street. this is not a building that's tall by reference to the other buildings. particular, the ones across the street. the fact is
russell street buildings are three stories tall and 33 feet high just like this one. if one building is 31 feet and one is 33 feet it really doesn't matter. it won't be noticed from the street but it will be noticed inside for the ceiling height, for the residents of the house such as for instance they are proposing take away from a few inches from ceiling height and it matters but i think it's important to note this is russell street seems to be a family street. i think all within all of our best interest to try to encourage families to continue to live it in the city to raise their families to have the room to grow. the buildings the same side of the street and on the other side of the street are roughly about the same size. there are buildings in the blotter even taller still. nothing about the height of this project is extreme or unusual. i urge the board to grant the appeal and restore the ceiling height that was taken away from this princes to make this a livable home the
family can go and they can entertain their family for year to come. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening and welcome >> members of the board good evening my name is lillian sheltered her family home is at 1251 1255 union and its adjacent to and directly north of 60 russell. my grandfather purchased at home nearly 70 years ago. we grew up in this cluster of dense buildings and apartments we've never seen a project of this scale at such a close range. after much negotiation the final site permit grants know when all their wishes. we accept there be a building right outside her windows. producing light and the flow of air [inaudible] south windows because of its nearness. asking for much more
the setbacks and smaller deck were compromises in our eyes. yet the pounds now ask that we even-that even for those they take them back. from the beginning this proposal was too big to fit the small site. it was reduced much less than needed in the pounds now ask for those small changes to be reversed. we acknowledge the building and we welcome our new neighbors. they must understand though the scale and proportion of the home. yes, there are some large single-family homes with all the amenities in russian hill but not on this block of russell. the union st., flats house 2-3 families each were built long before current standards. this is the whole point of san francisco's focus on context. we respect was already in existence because it defines with the neighborhood character is. the homes here are compact. many
are stacked units. some like ours with no garage at all. this new home will not exist in the vacuum. he needs to respond to and accommodate to some extent those of us whose history goes back many many years the planning commission consider this context and produced a recentdecision. i urge the board to uphold the department and deny the appeal before you. thank you. >> thank you. one question how tall is your building, ma'am? >> we have three flats. the height is--do you know the height? i don't know the height. >> is it over 30 feet? okay, that's fine. thank you. >> next speaker, please. speeding members of the board but my ms. crist--i live on
russian hill for over 30 years. a few blocks from russell street. the pounds brief space the buildings height will be consistent with other buildings on russell. this is not completely accurate. we measured every one of the 18 buildings fronting on this very narrow one lane street and the appellant to approach site permit allows for a building taller than any of them. the 311 plans propose to height of 33'10" the approved site permit for direction by planning commission reduces the height by only 16 inches. 232 feet, 6 inches, which is still 15 inches taller than the tallest building at 51 and 53 russell. 18'6" taller than the shortest building right across the street, at 65 russell. the appellants claim the required small reduction in ceiling height limits habitability for
the life of the structure and that the required removal of the front step and reduction of the parapet is harmful to the fabric of the neighborhood. these are not arguments in favor of making the building taller. each of their listed concerns could be addressed by interior modifications rather than merely applying historical cues to exterior. thus allowing you to correspond more closely to the neighborhood context and the other buildings on russell. similar buildings on the street are lower than russell,, 60 russell because their garages have lower ceilings and generally no ground-floor living space. bones garage is maintained a mere 11 foot ceiling height where through every iteration to accommodate its outsized car stacking machine. the appellants have had options and still have options. for addressing their stated concerns but raising the allowed building height should not be among them. please, uphold the commissions action and reject this appeal. >> thank you. next speaker,
please. good evening and welcome. speeding members of the board my name is the tar alum. i live at 1243 union st. speeding members of the board my name is the tar alum. i live at 1243 union st. i want to speak about 60 russell's third floor deck. since the preop location meeting until today we've invested our time in this project because of its clear impact to our privacy. the result of the planning commissions action on the result of the planning commissions action on august 4, 2016 is a compromise. a big concession we made we had which we had to accept the deck remains in the final plans. when the pounds will not consider reducing the buildings height and mass we would not-at when i pull in the decks really to create distance between it in our homes on union, we ask the deck be removed. with the deck you will hear every word of anyone on it. we will have to void the windows in our southside of our home to escape
i contact this will diminish the use of our homes. in the planning commission decision that you upsides are, the future decks rails will be set in on all three sides in the plant deck will be step back away from us because of the rear setback to the added stories themselves. the pounds now ask you reverse both these requirements closing the gap between buildings of 16.5 feet. the reduction to the length of the added stories and reduction in sizeof the deck benefit all parties by improving privacy. these may seem like details but there significant on a block of small homes built on very close together and i respectfully ask you poll the commission's decision and deny this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. speeding and welcome
>> thank you. good evening members of the board. my name is nina cardoza and i live at 1257 union st. adjacent to the site at the northwest. the pounds have been granted a permit to build the tallest building on russell street. will sit among three of the lowest buildings at the bottom of the two conversion slopes. this bowl -like setting will make a tight even more pronounced. for the sake of light air and privacy for the rear neighbors on union street and for more harmonious integration among the historic homes on russell's, we asked the addition be reduced in height. at first, we called for reduction of a story and at least 3 feet. the planning commission initially called for 2-3 feet. the decision at the august 4, 2016 hearing represented a major compromise the height lowered just the height lowered just 1'4" on the 311 plan. the appellants now asked to reopen this discussion and raise the building by 9 inches. we respectfully ask that this request be denied. we
are reconciled to a large new structure at russell, 60 russell, we ask you consider the historic context and the impact to the very close neighbors before making it even taller. thank you for your consideration tonight.>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i have a visual. good evening board members. my name is lawrence fan. the appellants hold a permit to build a tallest building on russell street. these two stories added to 60 russellexisting height will bring the new building into the same vertical plane as the living spaces in 1251 and 1255 union st into close visual and listening range of all floors of three side-by-side union street buildings and it will introduce new privacy concerns for at least seven neighboring
flats. in the appellant's brief, exhibit 12, figure 2 shows the floor to floor comparisons between these new levels and the hyphens home. but, to our building units of again 1251 and 1255 union, are lower and they are directly north of the site. our building consists of three flats. the lowest of which will face straight into the second level of 60 russell st.when they directed story poles they took pictures. one of which used see here with red lines showing the appellant's request. >> overhead, please. >> may i continue? >> yes. >> it clearly shows that one, we will see eye to eye with the residence of level ii. two, anyone out on their deck on level iii will look down into
our windows at very close range. to improve the privacy for all, the planning commission called fortwo added stories be set back at the rear the setbacks will alleviate some the privacy concerns for all neighbors in this constricted midblock space. these if the setbacks are reverse the building will be 16.5 feet away from our homes on union street. for my family, and for neighbors on union street, i ask that you uphold the commissions unanimous action and deny the reverse-to reverse the setbacks. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening. speeding members of the board of
appeals. my name is rachel daily and i own and reside at 1259 union st. alongside 60 russell out to the northwest. my husband and i have two very small children and are concerned about 60 russell project has always been privacy we've always voiced her concerns the pre-abrogation meeting and had the building designer over to our home to see for himself how close the new force would be but nothing came of this. i spoke at both planning commission hearings and hope of creating enough space between buildings that we could lessen the impact of three floors of windows between looking into our bedroom and our living room i like to add, with a call the storage room is actually where we also live, the basement because it's a multiunit house. this new story will greatly diminish our use of our home. this is a south and which is sunny and quiet and we will now be less inclined to use it to avoiding face-to-face with 60 russell's occupants at all hours. i felt the commission decision to push back the new stories building
didn't actually go far enough and i would disappointed that the therefore deck was not removed, but nevertheless, i understoodthat this is a compromise. but you have that all rolled back to bring that deck to back to within 16.5 feet of our home that's just not right. this is been arduous process. it's important to me and my family and to have it appealed now is to say none of it mattered. i ask you to preserve an element of our privacy and deny the appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. one question, what was put down as storage or basement levels his actual ego living space? >> we use it as a playroom -office. actually just finding out if it's legal but we have a yard. that's her yard >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening and welcome speeding for members my name is
judd gross i live at 1257 union st. tracy looks home at 64 russell is set alongside 60 russell for 111 years. both are small homes. their interiors are made more livable by light wells. 60 russell's large existing light wells [inaudible] to allow more light into tracy's home. from the beginning tracy asked to be maintained there be continued through the two added stories. the rdt took at the same position he directed the sponsor in writing to maintain existing largely well and carried up to two added floors. the appellant manage somehow to get this direction reverse. at a public view. this is just one of the several demos which imitates favoritism benefit the appellants throughout the process. the compromise tracy accepted any and is a smaller batch light well the begins at the base of her light well. even commissioner antonini the only commissioner who spoke in favor of any aspect of the project specifically loaded with all of his fellow
commissioners to ensure the light will base was brought down to the base. the appellants argued in their brief that raising the base web no effect on sunlight. of course, they are right because they took was the sunlight away by adding the height and light well so much smaller. the point of the lower base is to maintain an open feeling in that light well so the roof of the appellant's first floor is not right up to tracy's windowsill. raising the base to tracy's windowsill were further degrade the already small shared open space. it will appear more restricted and telling from tracy side where her window is lower than the appellant's. one of the commissioners specifically refer to this request as creating, quote tenant living that is tenement living for trade for tracy not for the pantsuits of open space beneath her window so and so to them light well space would appear more open and larger. if you also want to consider the interior trade-offs, tracy of course gets nothing any pounds get just a slightly larger
third bathroom on this tiny substantive law. i ask you to look closely at this point to weigh the needs and wants find this question proportions of this light well and its impact to 60 and 64 russell along with all the other points in this appeal have already been carefully considered by the board and voted upon unanimously. i respectfully ask that you recognize this work uphold the site permit as it is. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. >> thank you good afternoon pres. honda and members of the board of appeals. my name is kathleen courtney. i chair housing and zoning for the russian hill community association and we respectfully urge you to deny the appeal and support the integrity of the planning process, which has been shown throughout this whole process.
this case has been a challenge to the project sponsors, to the neighbors, to the planning department, to the planning commission and to the community at large. a two-story addition onto a one-story residence in a potential historic district is a challenge at best. particularly, when the original plans it did not respect the context of this project and the impact that it has on residences not only on russell street, but on union street whose property abuts the rear of russell street. over a period of months the planning commission attempted to orchestrate a solution. a solution that did not what either party really wanted, but was, in fact code compliant and acceptable. such a compromise was set forth in the planning commissions unanimous decision. citizens and their
neighborhood organizations rely on the integrity of the planning process and the decisions of the planning department, and the planning commission. this was the planning commissions unanimous decision with a significant reduction in with the neighbors requested but they accepted it because it was part of the process. we urge you to support the planning commissions unanimous decision. deny the project sponsors appeal and support the integrity of the planning process. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. >> hello. my name is matt brousseau i brother john i have owned 1234 union at the northeast corner of the site
since 1990. the points of the price of the balance of expressed dismay at the time involved the burden of interaction with planning, and with us. the repeatedly stated the need to get the building underway to house their family. so we were surprised to receive notice in february that they were pealing their own permit. after having been granted right to build essentially the home they mapped out at the beginning, after most of the compromises seem to be placed on us as neighbors, we were stunned the appellants would delay the building further. in contrast, to the appellant's were not working towards a new project. we are just working to maintain a current lives in our existing homes. at every turn when they will not communicate well when they choose to prolong already overlong undertaking the delay building this home and moving into it. the general complain about the length of the building process in san francisco. but the balance have their permit and yet they're not proceeding. you are time and all of our time is
precious and we feel every detail of the appeal has already been thoroughly considered and acted upon. much of the outcome is not to our liking but to accept it. you will have lives to lead and we really urge the board to reject this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comments? seeing none, we will start our rebuttal with the appellant. three minutes. >> can we please have the camera? >> overhead, please. >> commissioner fung-i'm sorry pres. onto us exxon question was the actual height of the building behind us if you look to our exhibit 12, you can see clearly identified the height of 1243 union st. is over 45 feet measured at the same place if you measure building 233 feet. you can then see based
on what's been shown that 1251 union st. is even higher and finally the residence at 1259 union st. is even higher still. you can also see based on a question you asked regarding the, what is the living space, the play room or space ms. dailey identified is not even face onto our property and that the first floor above ground floor of their property overlooks our roof line entirely. commissioner fung you asked the question about rear lot line. you can see her all three of these homes have zero setback and if there's a difficulty in building been closer than people may want that's not the result of our action. that's result of grandfathered noncompliance.. we have sought to be fully compliant as one speaker said, respect the neighbored by respecting our existing rear building line and going further back from it. >>@also say we are the only house on russell street that has a rear yard. we decided not to go against that rear yard
and keep it there to allow for that midblock open space to remain so we do not push back the amount we were allowed or even try to go to a variance to go further. >> ms. luke mentioned light. if you look to our exhibit 7 from our brief you see the shadow series approved we cast no shadow on any building addressed here today on any level. ms. luke adjust the light well. i would like to point out to you that from her brief, her exhibit 6, the residential design guidelines show the exact condition were asking for. uneven height and light well depths to the point of blocking a window fully. we are only asking for uneven height enough we can have an undersized 7 foot ceiling below our light well or she gets full use and will not block her window at all. regarding due process, mr. keady is correct the planning commission has complete discussion on what they do but our complaint is about the 20 july meeting that jeff joslin had with our architects after the process began when he imposed changes.
those changes were not debated with the planning commission. those are the changes with the due process issue arises. it's been asked why are we appealing ourselves? i would remind you many people pointed out that these bones will be here for hundreds of years but only one chance to build our home. our twins are already born and makes no sense for usto perceive with a permit that doesn't give us a nursery big enough for two cribs were done were we can gather our family together.. i want to finally point out that as ms. luke point out we started the beginning. she said herself 25 versus 22.5 feet. what does 1.5 feet really matter to you. my more or less private? these changes really do not do anything as much as they desperately impact us. >> thank you. >> we cannot rebuttal from ms. luke. >> question? >> i'm sorry one of the
commissioners has a question for the permit holders. could you please come back to the podium? >> my apologies for my late question. some of the argument i hear is that there was a lot of compromise with the neighbors and now you sort of going back on those compromise. can you address that? >> yes. the changes we are requesting were not are compromised. they were mandated by either the planning department in the meeting where they were voted on by the commission hearing. the list we show you of the multiple items those are all come from i so we did make were not asking for reversal of any of those. those included things that specifically address our listmove balcony we removed it 100% remove parapet removed it 100%. possible limos and light well we agree. so these are all the compromises that we proposed and when i tried to go back on that. however other things were post on us they were seeking reversal. >> okay, thank you. thank you for the clarification. >> thank you. >> first of all if you want to
speak-if you want to address the board you have to come and speak into the mic phone but you don't need to address what you're about to say because you can have anyone come and speak on your behalf. so if [inaudible] wants you to your three minutes, that is fine. >> good evening members of the board get money ms. john burris of my brother matt and i own and occupy 1243-1243-8 union st. ne. corner of the site. the appellant's-the balance of not been receptive to our needs as neighbors. repeatedly stated the process-the project meets code and that should be enough. the code alone cannot address the needs on a block where the affected buildings were built in a different era under different conditions. our concerns about the about the project running the height mass
and façade make little effort to integrate with the century-old homes alongside it. the same height and as negatively impact the light air and privacy of close neighbors on russell street in our homes behind it on union street. the appellant's charge they were denied due process with the record shows they were in fact given special privileges for reasons unknown. rdt directions reduce the garage level to reduce the garage level on to maintain the existing light well were ignored. these two directions were reversed without the written record. the project went to the commission with incomplete and inaccurate demolition calculations where other projects have been delayed over such lapses. finally, the appellant's have had two well-respected law firms working on this. are we to believe that neither law firm could secure the prope project sponsors due pro? the pounds are asking us, they're
asking you now to throw out not only the commission decision but also their own plan amendments which are baked into that decision. at every turn, we have moved closer to the appellant's desires repeatedly lessening our request. 60 russell is a modest house on small historic street by other small homes. the appellant's knew this from the start. there wishes to build the tallest building on russell street, three levels over basement, stacker garage, decks on multiple levels, in short a home like no other on the block and one that overwhelms the small size of the law. they now possess a permit to build this and yet the appeal this permit to ask for more. this appeal seeks to negate those of us who file discretionary reviews, the concern neighbors who joined us the neighborhood associations, that support us the planning department that urges the appellant's to heed commissioners direction, the planning commission spent two long sessions on it and now you are bored. we respectfully ask
you to recognize these efforts by all of us at every level of the process. please, reject the appeal before you and let the building permit stand as it is. >> thank you. >> anything further? >> at him anything specific to that but am available for any questions you may have. >> all start off with one. >> go ahead. >> could you clarify what about your point about due process given with the appellant's at? >> sure. the original point i made the design of review process the planning to use the project. if the project doesn't go to the planning commission the planning to burn staff develops a recommendation. as to whether or not we feel the project meets residential design guidelines were not.
ultimately, the planning commission are the ones that have the ultimate say in appeared in this situation, it's a little bit of a disjoint disjointed trajectory because you're the first hearing. the planning commission gave direction to the project sponsor and to staff essentially that they needed to address some issues they weren't going to address design the project at the hearing and work with a dr requester and address specific concerns. our staff worked with the project sponsors and their architect and the neighbors to kind of update our review of that project based on the comments from the planning commission because we do take direction from the planning commission in those situations and our staff provided additional updated comments as to how we felt the project needed to be amended to meet the planning commission's concerns. that resulted in the revisions that were made at the august dr hearing. at that
hearing the planning commission felt like those revisions were not adequate and required additional revisions to the project in order to meet the residential design guidelines in the determination of the planning commission. >> first question was, what the historic value and a block? is a class a, b? >> there's not a establish historic district there, but there's a number of historic buildings in that area and on a block. >> okay. the other is, as the permit holder mention, the union street is at a ivan they're using 100% of their lot? >> correct. most of the buildings amelia jason to the buildings just to the north of the union street are generally for lot coverage 2-3 stories high on union street but
because the downsloping topography are 3-4 stories so in the rear but generally for lot coverage. around 1908 i believe >> the other question is that if the plans again the one person from the public that said it was storage but those are not storage level evidently. basement levels? >> i mean, there is space there. how exactly it's used i don't know we have all that information i don't know that we have conducted site visit into those bones >> the very last question is, if they could build up the maximum how would it look in comparison to what were looking at in front of us now? >> i believe there was one diagram. essentially it's a 40 foot high district although there is 45° hangover requirement at the front in this district so you cannot you 40 feet all the way to the street. to be a little bit of a setback at the front. then it
would go back to the 45% mark rh-two. i think this is a good diagram. >> i saw that earlier >> yes. this is the additional height they could get. the 45° angle referencing and this is the additional height of 40 feet. this is an rh-two districts he required rear yardages 45% last for averaging up to 25% to which this property takes advantage of because the neighboring structure is steeper. but at the point where your 45% line hits you can go above 30 feet. that's why you see this big drop in the green area here. so there's a little bit of additional height at this third floor but they would not be able to-they were not under the code be able to match that with the fourth floor because the
last 10 feet that you average and you rear yard has a maximum height of 30 feet. >> are there any-what other variances and exceptions on this particular project? >> there's no requested variance or exceptions. i think has been stated the project is code compliant if it wasn't require a variance or some other type of exception that may be eligible for so this is an issue of influencing the residential design guidelines. >> thank you very much. any other questions? >> to questions. you can keep that. that's kind of a good visual right there. so the 22 things that i heard from the appellant were there taking away -they are taking away from the existing building envelope. and that would be i guess in the back of the building. does that-
is that reduction-is that going all the way to the ground from the existing-is occurring off the back of the existing building? >> we might need some clarification the existing building is essentially one-story building ministries not being cut back. the proposal was for the second and third floor and those two floors are being cut >> that's fine. not really cutting back on the existing building envelope. because the first floor is not really which is the existing building envelope, is not being affected. >> that's my understanding >> all right. excuse me you can object. so that is number one. so the setback is being required by the planning department or suggest by the planning to ferment and affirmed by the planning
commission. is that really more to setback that deck? so the deck isn't as intrusive into the faces of the people in the back? i mean was that their thinking? >> privacy for adjacent property owners and tenants was definitely one the primary concerns the planning commission had for making some of the revisions to the project, yes. >> right. so i think is a bunch of dominoes here. you said it back to you give them some more open space on the backside. not intrusive into the original building envelope but this is an attempt to again create a compromise which makes everybody unhappy but that's compromise. so the other thing, the whole conversation was only couple more inches upwards and that's going to affect our ceiling height in our building. but then i'm conflicted with wasn't there a choice by the
building owner to actually reduce the size of the building by not insisting on having that garage which is oversized to accommodate the garage he could is the problem with not having floor plans, by the way. >> i'm not sure if i understand the question and i don't think-i don't think the garage impacted the height overall. >> you want to speak-they went down a little to accommodate the garage. i don't believe it had any impact on the floor height it so. >> okay. great. that was my two questions. thank you. >> mr. teague, i commented earlier applies to the fact that we never got your dr report, staff report. the summary of the action. normally you guys provide us with the dr
staff report. sometimes you provide us with the rdt report. how come not this time? >> i honestly don't know. after follow-up on that and get back to you. >> okay. let's go back into some of the primary issues here in this case. what was the thinking behind squeezing an inch out of here and squeezing 4 inches out of there? >> sure. that granular level of detail i'm going to- >> before you leave then, i'm assuming then you folks got documentation that was more extensive. you can't even tell from anything here with the structural systems are. how do you squeeze inches out of anything. i do know what you guys are using. >> and i believe we have anything really structurally
aside from it generally doesn't have the structural-we don't have anything beyond that. i think what we have is just the plans that we have as part of the dr hearing building permit actually issued. then going back to the other question mr. joslin will elaborate. i think the planning commission has some desires about reducing heights in certain places. i don't think they had a lot of-i think they were flexible and how he was a cheap it was an engineer inch over there. >> okay. that mr. joslin can address it but that the last point then is during the course of the meetings with the rdt and further on from that, were there larger contextual drawings showing site plans, street elevations? >> yes. the original for any type of building permit like this, as part of the plan submittal we require that you
have essentially a site plan that shows adjacent properties and buildings elevations that show adjacent buildings as well. >> i know that's what the drawing requirements are but did your staff require expansion of those types of drawings you could see the context along the street frontage? >> expansion, how exactly? wider scope? >> yes >> i don't know if that was part of the required submittal. i know that we do have a lot of tools of able to us to see that through satellite imagery, google maps, doing site visits and then for the dr hearing itself generally architects they often provide more information at that scale. >> okay. i asked the question of mr.-the question is, if you would provide us with some of
the thinking behind what occurred to generate both the reductions in height and increases in setback? >> certainly. at the hearing process-we will start there. it was clear the concern they were channeling from the community was the, simply, the impact being imposed by a single-family residence on half-dozen or better other residences. as such, they were looking forand directing us to explore with a sponsor and their representatives every opportunity to minimize that compressive relationship between the structure and the residences behind. both in terms of height and proximity.
i think we can all appreciate the frustrations or concerns or surprise around these discussions about inches here and inches there. but, what we were again working for together looking for each and every opportunity to minimize that scale and straight more appropriate and responsible as possible relationship between the new structure and those existing. so those included in unusual set of explorations and efforts. there were 6 inches taken out of the overall building height. taking-removing the rear parapet. dropping to the rear portions of the upper level in order to again get another 6 inches of lower height so that
we are building wall would not be imposing element on what were the primary use of the residences above. of course, similarly, with setbacks. again, it was felt that, that dimension, that relationship between those building elevations was extremely tight. there was a specific reference by one commissioner to it being equivalent to tenement dimensions. that 16 foot six. so again in terms of the various levels and setbacks in the relationship of the ducks to those residences behind they were looking for that balance between creating more
dimensional relief between the two structures and doing so in a way that still allowed the proposal to work as desired. other questions? >> no. thank you. >> would you state your standing 16.5 feet from me, just put it in context for the commission? >> maybe just a little short of that. >> yes. i just want to put it in some sort of contact. it's pretty close even if i went back like this. that's kind of where the distance from the building would be. >> in terms of acoustics i can hear you finally here. i cannot hear you as well back in my seat. the same applies [inaudible / off mic]
>> please. >> the same applies for the deck and the concern about those impacts. the setback, the railings for various kinds of decks is a very common practice now.. in this case i think it was a concern about it being a social area versus an opportunity for pause. they did not address that two specifically, but again given other discussions we've had about decks i would characterize that as being part of that intention. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i will stay with my original comment. i need certain documentation. i don't
know if my fellow commissioners- >> is your admonition to continue until you get that document tatian? >> i need to see-if people are already make their decision- >> no. i think what you said the bleep brief was lacking. we do not have the drawings or plans and it's hard to see relationships. >> let me spell out what i would like to receive. i need to see the floor plans that went with the elevation sections for what theappellant would like to have us do. they only provided the sections and elevations. they do not provide the floor pans. i would like to see the state permit orders. so i can see what was the results of the planning commission conditions. i would like to get
the discretionary review staff report from planning, and if there is an rdt residential design team report, i would like to receive that also. for planning, if they requested expanded drawings, whether it is site plans were street elevation, i like to receive those also. >> i would concur. i think there is more information. i think at this point as it stands it creates a propose an unfair burden to the permit holder because ofexisting and conforming properties and i like to see with that burden is and why the planning department decided to shave off inches and feet in certain areas. any
discussion? >> unprepared to make a motion. madame dir., can you give me an appropriate [inaudible] and appropriate date? >> actually i think you could put it on the 17th if the parties are available i think a good number of the cases on the calendar will not be heard that night. there's a cluster of baby >> that doesn't work for the appellants? may 17? [inaudible / off mic] may 24? [inaudible / off mic] we have
no meetings over the next three weeks. the next opportunity would be may 31. [inaudible / off mic].. okay. all right. june 21. >> commissioner swig is absent if that matters. all the parties available on 21 june? okay. so then we have a motion from the vice president to continue this matter to june 21 so that the item that he read into the record or spoke into the record can be provided both by the appellants and by the
planning department on that motion commissioner lazarus aye honda aye wilson aye swig tremont. the motion passes with a vote of 5-0. this matter is continued.we will move on then to the last item on our calendar which is item 6 appeal number 17-033 julian lagos versus department of building inspection planning department approval. this is a property at 555 selby st. protesting the issuance on february 13 27 into the city and county of san francisco of a demolition permit to demolish a to demolish a tape 51 story office building. i would ask if the folks leaving the room could do so quietly that is helpful and we can proceed with the next item. mr. lagos, we are ready for you. you can step forward and you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening mr. lagos. it's
been a while. >> it has. i come with a different hat tonight i'm not representing lake per se. tonight i come with a different hat and that is representing the interests of a group of animal species that in my opinion don't get the recognition and the acknowledgment of their plight as they should. in this country, or in the city and that's why i'm here tonight. there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of homeless cats in the bay area. san francisco is no different. we have thousands of homeless cats on the streets of san francisco in various neighborhoods. fortunately, for our city, there are groups of people called rescuers and caregivers like myself who go out every day and every night
to care for these animals. that is why i'm here tonight. because i believe their interests are paramount. if any of you are pet owners, or guardians you know what i'm talking about. so, tonight that's why i am here. let me get to the body of my prepared statements. the main reason i'm here tonight is to save the lives of seven community cats that reside at the demolition site of the permit holder at 555 selby ave. in san francisco . a public property owned by the taxpayers of san francisco, also known as the city and county of san francisco.. for the past three years i've given care to these animals on a nightly basis bringing in food, water and tender loving care.
but when necessary taking these casts to see a veterinarian dr. on my own dime for the purpose of receiving much needed medical care and treatment. sadly, when these cats have passed away i've been the one to have lead them to rest in their final resting place. the pending demolition of the five of the 5555 selby site will result in the destruction of the only home these cats have ever known. since i've been caring for them i've been caring for them since 2014. at this point, there is no alternative home for them to go to. these cats will go unfed and likely starve to death or be killed on the street all
because they will no longer have a home at 555 selby ave. in preparation of this project the permit holder has failed to use due diligence and scoping out the selby property and factoring in the lives of these community cats. instead the permit holder has behaved as though the lives of these cats don't matter. he has even suggested the gatsby fed and cared for on a nearby street a proposition that is utterly preposterous given the dangerous conditions that exist there. both for the cats and their caregiver which is me. is the appellant i'm asking that the permit holder modified both the demolition and construction permits for the purpose of accommodating these cats and their continued existence at the 555 selby site.
i am asking the permit holder accommodate the needs of these cats in their primary caregiver, myself, by allowing the cats to continue to live on the 555 selby site in a small outdoor space where their daily caregiving needs can be met. this request will require a minor modification be made to both the demolition and construction plans by the permit holder. in the meantime, i'm asking the board to suspend the 555 selby demolition permit until these minor modifications are made to accommodate the needs of these precious animals. it would be precedent-setting for the city to make an effort to use public space on public property, paid for with public
funds, to meet the needs of these homeless animals. like cats, and put san francisco once again on the cutting edge of creating progressive public policy. i thank you for your time and attention and deliberations and respectfully request that you do everything in your power to save these cats lives by allowing them to continue to live at 555 selby uninterrupted and direct the permit holder to accommodate their needs by modifying the site design plans. i thank you. >> thank you. >> iva supporter was also a rescuer. will she be allowed to speak. >> under public comments. >> okay. >> we can hear from the permit holder next. >> good evening welcome.
central shops. i'm here as you know because mr. julian lagos appealed a demolition permit for 5557 street on february for 5557 street on february 17 27 raskin abortive appeal to deny mr. lagos's appeal with no changes to the demolition permit site or building plans. i want to provide just a little project overview the central shops maintain city's vehicle fleet including fire trucks please cars street sweepers and garbage trucks. the central shop is moving from outdated 50-year-old facility to a new site in 1975 galvez in 555 selby st. the new site consists of a lot merger in 1975 galvez, this portion here. and 555 selby st. completed last year. i like to note it took about three years to locate and complete the transaction for this property. mr. lagos appealed the demolition permit for 555 lb street. this portion here, the demolition permit for 1975 galvez was not appeal.
this site plan shows you the perimeter of the future building over the two parcels for little more context. for more overview the project and visit it would consist of a heavy-duty shop. this portion here which is all the fire department vehicles. large proper trucks area letter trucks, etc. good to be a medium duty shop which is all other large vehicles such as garbage trucks, tractor trucks and in the middle is the administrative office and training area. the schedule of abatement and demolition was scheduled to begin on may 1 and construction a week later on may 8. mr. lagos is appealing the demo permit for 555 selby st. out of concern for colony of feral cats reside on the site. he's asked us to modify the permit for the purpose of accommodating and preserving the habitat for the feral cats. efforts point would like to make it really is no natural
habitat on the site. the site is located in a core industrial part of the city that's when a present paved. as you can see from the photo. it's bordered to the east of caltrain trucks and here there's been a 10 foot fences severing the property from the [inaudible] and to the west by caltrain track that covers the parking area by caltrans highway 280 overpass. to give you another view of the existing building, the demolition permit in question, and you can see the paved nature of the site. another view here shows the fully paved area of the site. so again there's no natural habitat the cats are totaled abandoned cars on the site that we understand that down in this corner here on the lower left along the eastern edge part of the [inaudible] the cats are residing in some of those cars. the cabs, both totaled andin
operational are the property of de soto, the tenant. they will be removed when the de soto boat vacates the tenant. the cabs are beyond the purview of the demo permit will be removed regardless. the cats cannot remain on-site because they are not owned by the city and they are not safe to enter due to broken glass and sharpmetal. again a little bit of our construction schedule get as a mention de soto vacates on april 29 and the gate will be closed and locked to secure the property but we've notified mr. lagos of this on several occasions i'll be no access to the site after april 29. on may 1, abatement and demolition begins at the adjacent site in 1975 galvez and a week later test files we driven and 1975 galvez using 100 foot rakes a lot of construction activity and noise and vibration. partners worked and dpw console with both sf pca and animal care and control in their
recommendation was to gradually begin moving the feeding off site. so we notified mr. lagos of that recommendation but they did say that regardless of whether the food is transition off site or not the cats are independent creatures and they will find a new food source and relocate on their own accord once construction activity begins. so we provide those recommendations to mr. lagos. the next slide demonstrates our communication with mr. lagos suggested he begin to transition the cats off the site. this was over a month ago. it is not clear to us mr. lagos was in fact transitioning the pd activities off-site. we notified him with a few days of advance notice we would start moving the feeding station ourselves you see here in this picture remove the feeding station which consisted of a few bowls of cat food and water from the edge of the building towards the fence inside the property to start gradually transitioning the feeding activities off-site. according to the de soto general manager mr. laos moved
the feeding station back to the original position and they might've been removed entirely and i understand he continues to walk the site manually feeds them in the abandoned cars. i want to address the second point distallyase of apple in the futures of the new location and i 75 galvez and five of five selby is upgraded so every square foot of that site we use for parking staging circulation and code required bio swell for storm water. the be very large trucks circulate around the site and the site is not safe for animals. the street here which is hard to see there some lines that show circulation pattern around the building.. the be heavy trucks in and out of the bays and reversing forward and shows the parking and staging area. this picture here just gives a little more clarity around the site constraints of the site in the limited circulation facing them. so in conclusion the release no natural habitatson the existing site. the feral cats sleep in the van
and cabs that will be removed from the property by april 29. unable to when i thicken the gates will be locked in by may 8 heavy construction began in 1975 galvez mr. lagos is at ample time to gradually transition the feral cats off-site and regardless of whether mr. lagos transitions them according to animal care and control and sf pca cats will move along on their own accord when construction begins. we therefore request mr. lagos demo permit appeal be denied and no change be made to the existing demolition plan and/or the site and building plans. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> your project is permitting is on a site permit basis is bs we have a site permit. we received a site permit >> let me ask my question. the site permit was not appealed >> correct. >> correct. >> why is your demolition a summit separate permit? >> my expense is the
demolition permit often comes separate from the site permit >> no normally it's the first >> we received addendum number one issued and ready for pickup >> then you indicated you have not done your moorings yet? >> we have given powell structural system. these are indicator piles to test the >> okay thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department.>> >> good evening >> good evening cory take planning staff again. briefly the property is located in a pdr-two district and also in the bayview hunters point redevelopment area. the
subject permit was cemented in october of last year and improve the percentage of vermin in november. issued by dbi in february of this year. permit did not require notification and fully comply with the planning code and the redevelopment plan.. there was also secret clearance for this project overall. that was completed in october 2015 and a general plan referral that was approved by the planning director in that was approved by the planning director in november 2015. i'm available for any of the questions you may have. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> thank you commissioner joe duffy dbi. i don't have much to add either apart from the was a separate building permit for the demolition of a type one story office building. and another permit for the construction of the new one story no basement type iii public utilities yard vehicle repair. that's fairly typical
attribute form six demolition permit and then you have your form one for your new building. the site permit has been issued and the agenda one has been approved and has not been picked up yet it's going through our agenda process. there's no building code issues that i can see. >> thank you. >> we can take public comments, no. whoever likes to speak, please, come forward. speeding >> hello. i'm janice from-. i may concert harpist by trade. an animal lover as i'm sure all of us are. there are about 40 proximally 40 of us in san franciscothat care for these animals and if were not for acc and spca this program could not exist at all. the program i am referring to is tnr, trapped
neuter release. typical of the volunteer such as myself we are not waiting by a phone. we are very busy people. i'm an educator, professor at cal state , hayward east bay. sf state, school of the arts. san francisco symphony. so i believe we can come to a compromise on this and based on your previous case i would say, this one is considerably easier. in terms of how this can be resolved. there are specifically seven community cats that have gone through tnr . i have some experience with this historically from the laguna honda site and the mount davidson site. in laguna honda site we worked together with acc and spca and we saved not
just cats and many others in mount davidson we will the pg&e with an easement and proved their working condition clearing a long easement. so, there is a happy ending here. we are looking for a solution where everybody wins. i think we can find that tonight's. what were talking about is an area 5' x 5'. that's it. that's all. and we use everything from recycle bins as a coverage for the animals to any other containment store item in inclement weather. unfortunately, there's no roast beef on the top of the tree. this a very industrial area as has been described. there is a
natural habitat good i was there today. along the railroad behind the fence. where they live. so there is a natural habitat. and i think in conclusion, we are all trying to coexist with the same goal and respect each other, sobefore this gets out of hand, we are talking about seven cats. not 37. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comments? seeing none, then we will have rebuttal starting with mr. lagos. >> once again commissioners thank you for allowing me to bring this appeal. we are taught that the lives of seven cats. the permit holder maintains that this a place
off-sitewe can take these cats too. and there really isn't. there is no off-site location to take these cats to pick they know it. we know it. they're going to develop that block. and there'sn their design plans for these cats. so for them to be appear telling you there is an off-site location, i will leave it to your own visualization,, if you can't make it down there to the psychic there is no other place for these cats to live for to be fed and i'm not going to go out there on a nightly basis on the streets of san francisco in this case, selby avenue, and he these cats. it's too dangerous down there. i know in a control won't do it and i know the spca won't do it. so there is no off-site location. to be discussed. they will die on the street. and the permit holder
knows that.they know it. they don't have a heart. let's be straight about this. they do not have a heart for these animals. there's a few of us that do but they don't. so i am asking you, please, in your deliberations tonight, if you have any heart for these animals please, direct them to modify these permits, allow these animals to live on the site and let me tell you, even if they build with their going to build-i believe they're going to build it ivan these animals are going to come back. they will be back. the be back within a year, six months. what are they going to do then? chase them off the property? are they going to feed him? i doubt it. so what we are asking you to do is, in a way very cutting-edge. allow the tax money of the people of the city and county of san francisco to
be used to house these animals. to allow them to be cared for, to be fed. this is cutting-edge policy and i think you folks know what i mean. i think you can do it. i know the city can do it and i know the people of san francisco would want it if we put it to a vote. they would want. they would say, yesuse taxpayer money on public property to feed these animals. so, please, uphold my appeal, direct them--direct the permit holder to modify their design plans and accommodate these cats. and save their lives. thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. billings rebuttal. >> thank you. i understand the struggle lagos care for for these guys but i want to clarify there really is thesitetoaccommodateanyanimalsan dbeveryunsafetoplace
aanimalsintentionallyonthisprope r ty.againthecontactswerehavingate rribl etimelocatingexteriorsmallcabine t onthesitebecausetheverytightturn ingradii. >>duetothefact >> any rebuttal from the department? commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> we understand the feelings. however, the peel is the wrong permit. it's a demolition permit. you should've appealed the site permit.the nature of
this permit and its specific is what we can affect either by subtracting or adding to it. it's a demolition permit. it's not the site permit that deals with the site land and the uses . i don't see a basis for this appeal. >> care to make a motion vice president? >> moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the demolition permit was probably issue. >> will motion from the vice president. to deny the appeal and issue the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on a motion commissioner lazarus aye honda aye, wilson aye swig aye. the motion carries with a vote of 5-0.
president hunter there's no further business before the board this evening >> thank you everyone. >> [gavel] >> [adjournment] >> >> >> all right. on 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 you innovation on or was on over 200 years they went through extensive innovations to the existing green new metal gates were installed our the perimeter 9 project is funded inform there are no 9 community opportunity and our capital improvement plan
to the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood it allows the residents and park advocates like san franciscans to make the matching of the few minutes through the philanthropic dungeons and finished and finally able to pull on play on the number one green a celebration on october 7, 1901, a skoovlt for the st. anthony's formed a club and john then the superintendent the golden gate park laid out the bowling green are here sharing meditates a permanent green now and then was opened in 1902 during the course the 1906 san francisco earthquake that citywide much the city the greens were left that with an ellen surface and
not readers necessarily 1911 it had the blowing e bowling that was formed in 1912 the parks commission paid laying down down green number 2 the san francisco lawn club was the first opened in the united states and the oldest on the west their registered as san francisco lark one 101 and ti it is not all fierce competition food and good ole friend of mine drive it members les lecturely challenge the stories some may be true some not memories of past winners is reversed presbyterian on the wall of champions. >> make sure you see the one in to the corner that's me and. >> no? not bingo or scrabble
but the pare of today's competition two doreen and christen and beginninger against robert and others easing our opponents for the stair down is a pregame strategy even in lawn bowling. >> play ball. >> yes. >> almost. >> (clapping). >> the size of tennis ball the object of the game our control to so when the players on both
sides are bold at any rate the complete ends you do do scoring it is you'll get within point lead for this bonus first of all, a jack can be moved and a or picked up to some other point or move the jack with i have a goal behind the just a second a lot of elements to the game. >> we're about a yard long. >> aim a were not player i'll play any weighed see on the inside in the goal is a minimum the latter side will make that arc in i'm right-hand side i play my for hand and to my left if i wanted to acre my respect i extend so it is arced to the right have to be able to pray both hands.
>> (clapping.) who one. >> nice try and hi, i'm been play lawn bowling affair 10 years after he retired i needed something to do so i picked up this paper and in this paper i see in there play lawn bowling in san francisco golden gate park ever since then i've been trying to bowl i enjoy bowling a very good support and good experience most of you have of of all love the people's and have a lot of have a lot of few minutes in mr. mayor the san francisco play lawn bowling is in golden gate park we're sharing meadow for more information about the club including free lessons log
>> here are these amendments. >> all right. good afternoon, everybody welcome to the board of supervisors language for that monday, april 17, 2017, my name is mark farrell i'll be chairing and joined by supervisor peskin community member supervisor tang and with us is supervisor hillary ronen thank ms. alicia and others from sfgovtv for covering this mooring and madam clerk, any announcements? >> electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the april 25th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay. thank you very much madam clerk temperature