Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  March 30, 2019 2:00am-3:00am PDT

2:00 am
building, and 656 is a six-story building. along the street, we have the moma loading dock, we have the bus drop-off area, and there is a parking garage entrance, as well as the saint regis resident drop-off and the saint regis garage, there is a lot of parking and traffic congestion on the street. here is the view showing the moma loading dock on the right and the building on the left, and the image to the left is showing the sheet -- saint regis parking entrance. this is an image of the mission street façades. we are going to be stripping off the existing nonhistoric
2:01 am
building elements and bringing back the look. and obviously the building on the right is the brick building and the six-story building is a concrete building. this is an image of what it will look like when it is done, there is extensive rehabilitation to this -- that meets the standards a lot of new paint, new windows, and new storefront. seismic retrofits that were done to both of these buildings is set back off the street so it is not impacting the exterior. the existing floor plans of the basement are converging the tenant storage to office and -- the proposed basement plan for
2:02 am
office where we are digging out the basement to increase the vertical height. off to the right is a bicycle storage that is being added and showers. this is existing street-level plan which is a mix of office and retail, and the lobbies are being consolidated. >> thank you, very much. we may have questions, thank you >> sorry. >> okay. do we have any public comment on this item? come on up. >> we only really want one. >> please. >> speak into the microphone. >> right. this is my first planning meeting. you guys do marathons, i do not like it. i owned a gallery that was on minute street and i moved to natoma street which is the next
2:03 am
alley over. but there were three galleries on the streets and all three galleries still exist and we were all playing -- paying market right mac rents. and i feel i converging this tomorrow ground floor office space in a neighborhood that has already suffered from so much conversion of retail, if you have tenants who will pay market right mac rent, and you choose to sell the building, and you choose to not offer them leases so that you thereby empty the buildings, you should at least be honest that you emptied the building because you want to develop it, which is fine. but to converted to office space is not in the benefit of the neighborhood. i was paying $13,000 a month for a space here, so i'm willing to pay the rent if i can have my business in this part of san
2:04 am
francisco. i still do, i do think there is issues with pedestrian safety of this neighborhood, but that has to do with a lot of the density that is there now. i don't think turning this into debt office space and i think they're both my letters and there are some pictures. i think the pictures they show are not a good picture of what ministry looks like. it is part of a vibrant arts community. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> jonas? >> i heard you.
2:05 am
>> hester. i'm here to speak about lighting the sidewalks, not opposed to the project itself, but i have become more aware as i get older and walking with a cane, and i am a woman, naturally that people don't feel safe when the sidewalk -- on the sidewalks all the time. and there are a couple of projects that are coming to you, one, two, three in the next couple of months that this is a relevant issue. when the developer comes in, the building owner should be -- especially one like this that is doing substantial work, required to install contemporary lading that lights the sidewalks on both mission and the other
2:06 am
street. it is scary. it does not -- it is not conducive to people walking down and feeling comfortable, especially when there's vehicles going in on the other side, and people go to the museum, they go to the hotel, they go to the museums. a big one and a small one, and the board of supervisors has been dealing with vacant retail spaces for a long time, and there's a lot of them in the c3, and various iterations. i am asking the planning commission to do its job on a conditional use, which is to look at the findings that you are making, and i have a problem with you making findings about seven a and seven b., unless you are requiring lighting imposed
2:07 am
by the building -- on the building owner permanently for the life of the building. they have to install the lighting and maintain the lighting because tenants have a way of disappearing. their lease ends, they go out of business, and if it becomes -- it becomes a black hole on the ministry or on mission street, it doesn't really work for pedestrians. there is a bus stop on mission street, it is a big bus stop. i just ask you to require -- you have to create a finding, i don't know if you have these things in your back packet to do it, but the planning department should require the developer to install lighting and maintain it permanently because this condition goes with the land.
2:08 am
thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item. >> okay. public comment is now closed. commission moore? >> because there are multiple tenants ordering the alley, is there a lighting plan that obligates all people to participate in a public lighting for them? that would be in the interest. i'm not as interested in seeing an individual building owner doing something, but if there is a plan, and everyone participates in a coordinated lighting scheme that adds livability, safety, and an environment in which people can also walk. it is a bus loading zone for the museum. it is a passenger drop-off zone, a resident drop-off zone from the -- for the saint regis, so there has to be some coordinated action. perhaps staff could talk to it and get a better feeling for it.
2:09 am
>> as part of the renovation of the building, exterior improvements were done under a separate permit, and i believe the sponsor can speak to the upgrades to the lighting. >> on the building façade in mission street, if you can see it on the screen, you can show there is a lighting plan. this is a long mission street. we are happy to condition the building to make sure there is lighting, and then here is the building façade back on the other street and you can see -- sorry, there is also lighting planned for the building there that addresses the concerns. >> good. >> i am okay with the design and the lighting, but i would -- seeing as there are other people on the cue, i would recommend they maintained those lights.
2:10 am
>> commissioner hillis? just question to the architect, do you have a rendering of the minutes -- of the façade as proposed? >> i don't with me. >> okay. >> can you just show us -- what is that? okay. >> it is a rough -- i generally prefer a retailer, but it is a little bit of a -- not the most active alley with the moma loading and the parking lot. i have been down this alley a lot. can you explain, just the openness of that space. >> each bay, the structural bay will be lit and that is what i am seeing. >> will it be fully glazed, is that all glazing in the back, into the office space? >> yes. >> so there will be light?
2:11 am
>> yes. >> and my other question was, maybe it is for the project sponsor, the size of the existing retail space on mission that you are proposing. who argue marketing marketing that space to? one thing, you are taking away their retail space, but also shrinking the mission retail space. >> the size is about 3500 on mission street. we have been working with a retail broker. it is on the screen. we have been working with a retail broker to make sure we have a size that fits the neighborhood because there's a lot of commercial -- >> go to the computer. >> it is on the screen. >> is broken up into two spaces among mission. and then we have the active office use, and then also a lobby. >> why did you decide to make the retail space that size? >> working with the retail
2:12 am
brokers that are active for the area, we wanted to make sure we have a size that was leasable to the area that is serviced by the financial district and the soma. it is a lot of neighborhood -- neighborhoods being served and this is working with the retail work brokers. >> okay. that is perfect. >> i would also note, as was mentioned, there's a seismic retrofit that has been done. you can see that there are sheer walls that interior to the building that were necessary for the seismic retrofit to avoid doing any violence to the exterior of the historic resources. it made a natural break point it would be very hard to program behind that wall to lease that space. the goal here was to try and use -- that point was a natural breakpoint for the retail. it is a challenge retail environment. i thank you know this better than anybody how challenging this is. the concept was working with the retail brokers that this would be the raised sizes, especially
2:13 am
this year walls that are including into -- and treating into all the interior space to have a successful experience along mission. >> commission moore? >> i believe the retail is sized to address the modularity of the building, and i'm comfortable and moved to approve. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. this is under the discretionary review calendar for item 16. discretionary review. >> come up and submit it, but staff will make the presentation right now.
2:14 am
, you can just put it down right there. >> staff needs to make the presentation first. >> thank you. >> ma'am, staff will make the presentation first and then you can speak. >> good evening. >> hello. the item before you as a public initiated request for a discretionary review for a building permit application, a three-story -- three-story rear addition and a three-story single-family house. the building touch a historic resource category is the reason for the d.r. the d.r. requester, the adjacent
2:15 am
neighbor to the north is concerned with two main issues. when number 1, the proposed addition and removal of trees in the backyard will impact privacy and light. number 2, the proposed addition intrudes into the midblock open space contrary to the neighborhood design guidelines. public comments, to date, the department has received one letter in opposition and eight letters in support. recommendation, the project is subject to the residential neighborhood design guidelines. in light of the d.r. request, they and we reviewed the project and confirm that the proposal does not present any exceptional extraordinary conditions with respect to the residential design guidelines or the neighborhood design guidelines. and the surrounding development pattern. specifically, number 1, the proposed addition complies with the neighborhood design guidelines with respect to the rear yard based on the location
2:16 am
of the adjacent buildings. the proposed two story rear addition maintains the building scale at the rear end the midblock open space pattern. by extending the subject property to align with the adjacent buildings to the south. the corner building to the north cover is its entire lot and says -- has property line windows facing the subject property check jet rear yard. number 2, although the property line windows are not typically protected by the planning department, that neighborhood design guidelines promotes good neighbor gestures such as accommodating sidewalk windows. the project sponsor has opted to accommodate two of the neighboring property line windows with a light well and a setback. number 3, although trees perform a number of important functions, unless they are determined to be heritage trees, they are not regulated by the planning department. however, the stated intention of the project sponsor is to retain the existing trees, and i think
2:17 am
that should be taken in good faith. with this, staff finds the project meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends a commission not take the d.r. and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the d.r. requester. please speak into the microphone please take it with you. >> hello. i appreciate your time after a long day. my name is allison and i do live at 2785 green street number 1 where i am a renter for 26 years this is about protecting the trees and the midblock greenbelt , privacy and light in my apartment. my understanding is that building codes exist for the common good and i'm asking that they is simply a project. this outside as my window and it looks out to the backyard. it is a large window, 35 inches
2:18 am
wide and 56 inches tall. looking south, east, and west, all i see are pretty greenery -- is pretty greenery. in 2014 in april, the applicant had a meeting and i asked the homeowner to please maintain my tree foliage in the privacy that it provides pick i did not hear anything until the november plant arrived, which omitted everything except for one tree. the before and after were identical, and a row of trees was designated as a pre-existing planter, so i was. surprised. i reached out to the association whose design guidelines protect what is called midblock greenbelt privacy, light and air i highlighted the applicable guidelines and the discretionary review that i filed. i also e-mailed my concern to the homeowner and to exchange letters which are attached in
2:19 am
the packet. in semi- received only vague statements of possibilities with no clear enforceable commitment to keeping the trees and greenery. the conversation only got serious once i filed the d.r., over four and a half years after making the request. the homeowner then said they intended to -- if i dropped the hearing. i no longer believe the homeowner would honor a handshake deal. i would like to share two important associations. s. is a key issues for the neighborhood are preservation and enhancement of the neighborhood character as perceived from the block face as well as the rear façade, which include enjoyment of midblock open space. it continues. not only should rear additions respect that space, but minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent buildings.
2:20 am
and number item that came up and looking at the plans was the house desk is proposed -- supposed to be 70 feet and 6 inches, i asked the association if that is allowed, but it is 4 feet longer then the neighbor who is 66 feet. the association said these additional 4 feet encroachment into the yard is not in any coat the codes read about the zoning, what is different in the zone that doesn't match the safety zone. reduction of building footprint. you can't see that according to these things. it says no 12-foot rear yard extension. the 12-foot extension is allowed by the planning code and prohibited in the neighborhood. so i think it is natural that i
2:21 am
am confused. to see no trees here on the before and after is surprising. i guess it is not technically a force, but i was surprised. this is a google view of the backyard and where i live. this is the tree view, it is nearly covered. this is my deck and my apartment is adjacent. in terms of the extension pass, the coded limits, this is highlighted. why is it 4 feet longer than its neighbor? so what i would like, i would like the codes to be followed and applied to this project, please guarantee the window entries will not be removed or
2:22 am
accidentally fatally hurt. i would lose my privacy and then see a house. the only issue i would -- i would ask they only issued the building permit. i would like this to be between the city and the homeowner, not the homeowner and me. again, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? please come on up. >> please, in support of the d.r. requester. >> my name is mike davies. my wife rosie and i are the owners of the property that is most affected by this project. it is directly next door and impacts both our building and
2:23 am
our tenants. we have been involved in the project since it was first proposed and we have objected to it since then. the proposed addition will permanently block light and air flow to the kitchens of three units. the blocked windows are south facing and would provide both warmth and light to the units. we have asked that this addition and before these windows rather than covering them, and when we were told that it was allowed to cover the windows, we asked that the light would be expanded. the city gave the owners a range of sizes for the light well, but they chose the smallest possible size.
2:24 am
the small size of the light well will make maintenance of the structure and windows difficult or almost impossible. should the project be approved despite our objections, we request a maintenance agreement for the blocked out areas be included on the approval. also the property separated by a very tall 100-year-old unreinforced masonry concrete wall. the area has serious ground water issues, and currently water seeps through the wall, all through the year. we are concerns that the large addition will impact the integrity of the wall and may redirect groundwater in a case -- anyway as to further problems for us in the future. we do not have a thorough report for it -- for a drainage plan, and we would like to see that so we know there will be no impact on our building. finally, the project will cause
2:25 am
disturbance and loss of privacy to 12 households directly adjacent to the work of the 12 units in the building, to the project be approved despite our objections, he owners owners and the architects and contractors verse -- take responsibility in writing for any tenant claims related to the project. we also request contact information be distributed to all tenants so they can address any problems directly with the owners and representatives. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment in support of the d.r. requester? please come on up. >> hi, my name is katie, i am a tenant unit one of the units that will be walled off with the project, and i just wanted to
2:26 am
make an appearance today to tell you my concerns as well. when i first received the plans, i expressed concerns. they wrote a very clear e-mail to the architect asking about a window similar to allison georgia. it is the only trees that i look out to pick i asked about it, specifically noting that i first asked -- asked about the accuracy of the plans because it said several times, all trees remain. if you look at the plan, it is impossible. i wanted to understand the accuracy. i wanted to understand the construction timing and the disturbances that mike has alluded to. it has been nonstop, and i know that is not the fault of the project here, but it has been nonstop and it just feels like we are constantly in a
2:27 am
construction zone. we have had severe water quality problems from the ground and all the work that has been done. i just wanted to voice my concerns about this, and would love -- i also would be concerned about the safety a little bit, i don't know if there is a fire hazard in some way, all of a sudden having a wall to look out to replace to get out in case of an emergency, i just wanted to voice my concerns. >> thank you. any other public comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay. we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. i am working with josh and
2:28 am
charlotte on this modest expansion to their single-family home. this shows the baker street frontage of their home. to orient to, you can see their home, and then the corner of green and baker, the apartment building where set that several people have spoken about. she has a primary concern about the window. her can -- her kitchen window in the rear of the property and maintaining trees on the property outside of her window, this photograph is from the backyard of their property. it shows the window in question. it shows her deck that is behind that fence. we are not going to effect those trees as part of the project. this shows, you can see the blue is the expansion of the home. her window is about here.
2:29 am
the project is not intruding into their rear yard where the window is. so there will not be any impact to the trees from the project. even if there were going to be impact, you have to -- you have a letter from the project sponsor saying they have no intention of removing those trees and if the trees are damaged, they intend to replace them. there's no issue about privacy to the window that is being maintained. the second issue i have heard come up has to do with the kitchen windows of other units and someone said they were being walled off. this shows you, this is the adjacent apartment building. this is the prime building. there is a kitchen for three different levels. that kitchen is serviced by three windows. it window from this existing
2:30 am
light well and a window here, and a window in the property line, and unprotected property line window. theoretically, we could build up to the property line and that property line window would be gone. we are not doing that. we added this notch so that the three windows will remain and light and air can continue in the kitchen as before. let me turn this over to mr. prime who -- to explain his perspective on this project. we also have the architects here , and i have a letter. if you are concerned about the engineering issues, i have a letter from the engineer about the foundation issue that was brought up. >> thank you. mel got -- president and fell commissioners, i live at 2552 baker street with my wife and our three children. we have made it our home over eight years with two of our children being born there during that time. as you heard in the letters, we
2:31 am
are active participants in our community. we are family faces to our neighbors. we watch each other's kids and exchange meals. it is an extension of our home and we want to stay there. but our home needs updating at a modest edition as well. we have a kitchen that will not fit a table for our family and we have three children and one bedroom. we need another bedroom, a larger kitchen, and a living space commensurate with the size of our family. landscaping has been elevated in the list of concerns. please note that in our letters before and after, we have committed to maximizing the green in our lot yard. we went so far as to commit to it replacing a specific trait if damage during construction. we have tried our best to navigate this outside the d.r. process. and my first phone call in 2014, i was told that if you move forward, we'll fight you all the way. we have the resources, we will fight you pick months later, at the suggestion of our architects
2:32 am
, i reached out after a potential solution was mentioned. mr. davies did not remember the encounter and my attempt to find a compromise went nowhere. in 2016, i reengaged with mr. davies and sent him amended plans or setbacks to accommodate property line windows, that attempt to communicate failed because we never received the promised called baptist call back. we were told by ally kirby that our project would be processed until we address concerns. months were spent trying to bridge the gap, he attempted to contact mr. davies several times to find a solution. finally in an e-mail, we are told that if we included a 3- foot setback, the staph would support plans. we understood that this compromise would satisfy mr. davies, and he did not file for d.r. even tell us he was unhappy with the setback. here we are today with plants and include the compromise and a commitment to maintain green space in our backyard, but they are still not satisfied. we appreciate the time of the commission and staff. thank you.
2:33 am
>> thank you very much. do you have any public comment in support of the project sponsor please come on up. >> hello. i am a neighbor that lives directly across the street. i submitted a letter to you which i will read. dear mr. winslow, we are writing in support -- writing in support of the remodelling project at 2552 baker street. we are their their neighbors immediately across the street at the corner of green and paper -- baker. charlatan josh up in our neighbors for several years and we know them and their family very well. excuse me. their children and wonderful and visit us frequently. they have created a wonderful home and have been welcomed warmly into the neighborhood. they're very active in community
2:34 am
affairs and are helpful when asked and a very kind to all of us. when they moved here, they only had one child and now they have three. the house, unfortunately, has not grown with them and the people who had it before were only two. so they do need to do some enlarging and updating as the home is not keeping up with their needs, we hardly support them -- heart elite support them in the design and their plans. we would like them to stay in the neighborhood. charlotte is a native san franciscan, as are we. we are losing too many of our natives because of unnecessary frivolous objections to the residents desires to change their homes. this request for a discretionary review is one of them. please grants the request to remodel their homes they can stay in the neighborhood and san francisco. we need more families like them, not fewer. >> next speaker, please.
2:35 am
>> good evening, commissioners. i live at 2545 baker street across the street from the family. it recently came to the attention of my wife and me that they're planned to remodel their home had been diverted into the discretionary review process. my wife and i are neighbors of the primes, and i want to speak today in support of their plan. the primes' plan to remodel and expand is modest to the standards of what has been permitted. further, they have been transparent with their neighbors as to their plan. and have diligently sought to inform and obtain neighborhood support, both from those directly affected by the plan and those nearby. they have listened to their neighbors, and have modified their plans to be responsive to
2:36 am
their neighbors' concerns. i applaud their efforts. they have lived in their home for many years and have three children. their contribution to the neighborhood and their presence makes -- brings life to our streets. in this economy and this achingly tight housing market, it is important to allow a family like them to make a modest expanse and -- expansion to their home of long-standing so they can continue to live in the house in which their children have so far been raised , it would be a huge shame if a relatively minor -- minor concerns of the neighbors, which the primes of made efforts to address, would get in the way of this modest expansion. we urge the commission to support the prime proposal to remodel their home on baker street. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. i live -- >> are you the project sponsor. >> i am, i was going to read a letter of support. can i not? >> no, sorry.
2:37 am
>> go ahead. >> i am reading on behalf of one of the many neighbors who support the project. >> are you part of the project sponsor's team. >> i am part of the team. >> your opportunity to speak was during the original -- >> you can submit into the record. >> okay. , thank you. >> any other public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. with that, public comment is closed. you have a rebuttal. >> d.r. requester? >> i think we have heard each other. i'm disappointed to be here, as are they, but i don't think it's frivolous, it is my life. is where i've lived for 26 years i have 180-degree view of a beautiful wall of trees with light, and it is not frivolous
2:38 am
to me to expand a footprint beyond what is allowed by 4 feet it is more than making a four-bedroom house into a five. i don't know what to say. i realize there are codes, and i believe that codes are there to have standards that are good for the public and in mid-block rebuilt is something the situate -- that he association takes very seriously. it is for the common good i don't think i'm being frivolous. a couple things dimension is i realize their lawyer is at the same firm that has represented me before in a business matter. i don't know if that is a conflict, and i thought i would put it on the record. josh's e-mails that came only after the d.r. expressed that they like green things and they like greenery and they like plants and specifically says we will not enter into a contract given you any rights over what we do with our home.
2:39 am
i'm not asking for rights over what they do with their home. i'm asking for a midblock greenbelt -- greenbelt to be maintained, and i am asking to explain why they get special treatment and get a house larger than what i understand the codes are according to the association i'm not asking for something special. thank you. >> thank you. >> very briefly, this expansion is a code compliant. it complies with guidelines and the planning code. as you can see here, the rear expansion matches the pattern. it will maintain the midblock open space and obviously there's nothing that requires them to plant a tree or a blush or do anything as far as how they want to landscape their own backyard, but they have made commitments to try to satisfy mr. rowe.
2:40 am
i don't know what more you can ask from them. thank you very much. >> thank you. okay, commissioner hillis? >> thank you. it is an interesting contextual setting that we have a single family home next a 12 unit building. hopefully we see more of these. in the apartment building, it obviously takes up most of the lot and has lots line windows, which aren't necessarily allowed , but i think because the expansion is modest and does all the right things to accommodate that context to build a light well, i don't think we can require that the tree be maintained. the open space is being maintained so you're always going to enjoy that open space, but tying the tree to this, i don't think it is appropriate. so i think it works. i'm supportive of the project and would be supportive of not taking d.r. and approving the project as proposed. >> there's one thing which i would like to talk with mr.
2:41 am
winslow. i'm so tired i can't even remember your name. and that is, i would like to see on drawing zero three roof terrace which comes from the bedroom which is basically right in the notch for the property line kitchen window, i would like to have the terrace held back in order to give privacy to the kitchen from the terrace. it is a small reduction in roof deck, and i think it will help everybody to maintain the kitchen not being affected by the use of the terrace. do you see what i am saying? the other question i would like to ask the commission, and it is not part of what anybody brought up, but it is part of our discussion, i believe that the house has a nice set of his terraces and open space. i believe that the roof deck behind the parapet is a little large given the adjoining
2:42 am
building, and the light well right across. you have a tall parapet and i would prefer to see that roof deck only occupying perhaps a 12 by 13 dimensional space, like if you make a square. i would like to cut to the roof deck back in order to give more privacy to noise impacts to the large light well that faces into that terrace. that's my own pet peeve because i do think i like to keep reasonable roof decks instead of having it almost the entire roof i would like to put that back. >> this is modest compared to what we sometimes see here on thursdays. i don't think this is too extraordinary. i'm okay with the project as proposed right now. >> i still believe that it's cutting -- the cutting back of the terrace on the third floor
2:43 am
is mandatory in order to keep the privacy of the adjoining kitchens. i think that is just something we have to do. >> commissioner hillis? >> can we ask the architect? i would not support the roof deck being reduced, i think it is set back from all sides as it should be. commissioner moore is referring to the terrace that is adjacent to the light well. >> i understand. i am the architect. we have employed a shape on the roof to step it back or set it back from the property line, and we have done a little bit of a site line analysis. certainly we can't keep all noise from moving around in spaces, but we've tried to prevent direct sites line into those kitchen windows. >> i would prefer you. >> vice-president melgar: the size of the terrace on the third floor. there is a notch --
2:44 am
>> i apologize, i'm sorry. >> i think commissioners made a comment that they are comfortable with the attic roof deck. >> i apologize, i understand what you're looking at. >> can you pull up the overhead? i'm sorry, turn that around. >> can you make it horizontal? it is drawing zero three. >> number 2. >> the left drawing on the bottom. >> we are discussing this terrace here. >> it interacts with the light well. >> it interacts with the notch out for the kitchen window. >> i understand now, yes. i think that could easily be sent back from the property line with low planters or something similar to prohibit anyone from precluding the light well. does that make sense? >> is it 3 feet? it is 3 feet deep?
2:45 am
>> the light well as to the left of the drawing, and so they overlap by those 3 feet. is that what you mean to ask? >> the late 12 -- so the distance between your project and the building is 3 feet. >> yes. at the area of the terrace, it is zero. where the neighbor has a property line wall, a blind wall , the terrace proposes to go all the way up to that blind wall. >> what is the treatments between the terrace and stopped light well? is it just a railing? >> yes. >> commissioner moore is asking to bring that whole terrace, but when the railing back to where the light well is. >> effectively bringing it 3 feet back from the property line. >> good, yes. >> i think that makes sense. >> you could always make the plantar outbound by the roof but it should be inbound and lining up with a notch. >> i think that is a nice
2:46 am
suggestion, but i'm speaking for the owner here. do you understand? is that okay to you? >> again, i don't think that is the most usable space you have is that terrace space adjacent to the building, so it is just setting that back 3 feet to give them some breathing room to that kitchen window that you gave them in the late 12. -- in the light well. >> strike a line there. >> is that clear? yes, okay. all right. okay. >> so you guys are clear on that >> yes, i think we are. >> rates, thank you. >> the usable portion of the terrace be set back by 3 feet, understood -- understood. >> the motion is to take it and shift that terrace 3 feet, on the second, third living area.
2:47 am
>> is there a second? >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to take the d.r. and approve the project as amended to set back the third floor terrace 3 feet to align it with the light well... [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. that will place us on item 17. this is a discretionary review. >> okay. >> turn your microphone on. >> the item before you as a public initiated request for discretionary review.
2:48 am
the building permit application 2016.0421 for construction of a 228 square foot horizontal rear addition of the ground level, also referred to in my report as basement level, a down sloping lot, and a 591 square foot horizontal rear addition at the second floor of an existing two-story over basement single-family dwelling. this building touch of status is a category see. the reason for the d.r. there are two d.r. requesters pick the first is jennifer cone of 283 bellavista way, the media neighbor to the southwest, and patricia mcdonald of 275 bellavista way, the media neighbor to the northeast, both adjacent neighbors to the subject property. they're concerned with the main issues. the first is the height and the extent of the one-story addition
2:49 am
under the deck and it is out of character to respect to the building scale at the rear, and impacts the midblock open space as well as boxes in neighbors a charge access to the midblock open-space. number 2, the privacy impacts through deck number 2 at the basement level. number 3, impacts to light and air from the front upper floor addition. number 4, the front façade is incompatible with the scale and character of the block face. the proposed alternatives include setting the ground floor rear addition back 5 feet from each property line, number 2, providing a 6-foot high privacy screen at deck number 2 at the west, number 3, sculpting the top floor addition by pulling in 3 feet and 5 feet sequentially as the top floor extends out past its existing location.
2:50 am
see the diagram in the attached d.r. application for more clarification on that specific proposal. number 4, refining the façade to be compatible with the proportions, features, and scale of those found on the remainder of the block face. public comment. to date, the department has received one letter in opposition and one letter in support. the recommendation, the project is subject to the residential park design guidelines which the department deems the sponsor has complied with in relation to the overall building massing and scale at the front and the rear. however, the project sponsor, to achieve that, has revised the design to incorporate three-foot side setbacks at the rear basement level addition. the one-story addition is filling in under an existing deck, with the extent of the deck has also been retracted 3
2:51 am
feet further inboard towards the building from its existing location. the number 2, they did not see any exceptional privacy impacts from either the debasement level or the first foredeck. the highest deck is approximately ten tonto 12 feet above grade and setback from the side left or sidewalk lines. number 3, the proposed section four addition is on the existing building footprints. while it does extend well past the second floors of the adjacent buildings, they consider the windows that serve those faces, such as bathrooms and stairs, and as such, they did not find any exceptional extraordinary conditions with that extension that result in impacts to light, air or limiting access to midblock open-space. therefore, however, improvements to the façade to comply with the rear part residential design guidelines respect the amount and level of detail and
2:52 am
surrounding ornamentation and compatibility of vertical and horizontal proportions should be made. because of the character of this block face is so consistent, and dependent on relatively few compositional elements, staff believes that continued refinement of the front façade is warranted to comply with the intent of the design guidelines pick specifically, stuff requests refinements to the design with a horizontal rail -- element. the entryway proportionately high to the other immediate buildings in the block could also be refined and window placement and proportions in detailing consistently with the guidelines. with this, staff recommends the commission take the d.r. and approve the project with these modifications to allow the façade designed to better comply with the residential design guidelines. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the d.r. requester. thank you did you have something
2:53 am
else? >> i just wanted to pass out those letters that were received >> thank you go ahead. do you want to pass that out? >> sure. >> leave them here and i will pass them out. you can go ahead and start your presentation. i understand that. >> mr. winslow, maia enter wrapped. thank yous time is running? >> please speak into the microphone. thank you. >> hello. can you hear me? i live at 275 bellavista, i have lived there for 42 years. the neighbor on the other side has also filed for the d.r. and has very similar concerns which will be shared by her representative. i have two concerns about the rear addition.
2:54 am
first, none of the houses along this block has an enclosed rear addition, and you can see on page 1 of the handout that is the case. only open decks pages two and three, shows that. his of the proposed commission will be a significant change in a sense of openness. i do appreciate the three-foot side setback has been provided at the addition, but any increase in the side setbacks that could be supported by the commission would further reduce the negative impacts of the addition for me. my second concern about the rear addition regards privacy, for this reason, i really do like that the addition does not have side windows, the. but the proposed rear yard access door and stared would be right beside the windows of my new basement bedroom, which you can see on page 4. this is uncomfortably close, and a fence not might -- might not block the view from that side yard into my building. the neighborhood notification
2:55 am
drawing at the door and stare at the rear of the addition shown on page 4 a, so i ask at this design fee used for the neighborhood guidelines say, articulate the building to minimize impacts on privacy to adjacent properties. the merlot my guidelines also encourage such good neighbor gestures. if this commission cannot support this solution, then shifting the planned door and stare into every well of the house which provide privacy for my windows, and you can see the sketch on page 4 showing this idea. in that scenario, i would like the sense to be on the 279 property that property -- i would like defence to be on that property. it would allow for a pallet fence in relation window. i have two concerns about the topic failure for fishing. the first is about scale and the
2:56 am
architectural drawings. the addition height wishing 6 inches lower on the drawings that were discussed at the d.r. mediation meeting with david winslow, so i had a contractor put up a story pull on my roof line for me to experience that type, which you can see on page 5, and as you can see, it seems very tall. the drawings were revised after the meeting without any discussion at the addition is now shown 6 inches taller from my roof. that is shown on page 6 and 7. this seems pretty unfair have particularly because i expressed concerns about the addition height at the meeting, so i asked at the height of the second floor ceiling fee kept at its existing height, and the high point of feed no higher than 9 feet to lower the height of the overall addition by 19
2:57 am
inches. you can see this on page 8. for san francisco guidelines say a building chapter proportions are evidenced in the floor to floor at heights, and the building features must be proportional to the features found on surrounding buildings, so i feel it is fair to request these design changes to make it a better fit with the scale of the adjacent houses. my second concern is with the top floor addition and the long and blank sidewalls and the neighbors share concerns. it is clear from the story pull that we are going to feel boxed in. again, looking at page 5. so we are requesting modest side setbacks, perhaps a foot or two to provide more of a sense of openness. if that can't be supported by the commission as a new idea, we ask that at least a small notch
2:58 am
be provided on each side of the addition to lesson is negative impact on the adjacent windows at the house. for example, providing a 2-foot deep notch at the proposed laundry and toilet room, see page 9, it would help us serve more daylight on my adjacent windows will not decreasing the size of these rooms. is that it? >> that is your time. you will have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. is there any public comment if you are right for the d.r. requester his for i'm sorry. is there another d.r. requested clean bill ahead. >> hello my name is stephen. i'm speaking on behalf of jennifer collins between!
2:59 am
and who has also also the final 40 d.r. here is her statement. i appreciate that there are at least three-foot side setbacks at the rear addition and that the sidewalls are without windows for privacy. i'm concerned about the proposed top floor addition been so tall and having a specified wall plate on my property line. in terms of the impact on my light, the time-lapse program so that the addition would put my adjacent bedroom window in shadow for much of the day. see page 1 of the handout, which is a significant quality of life changed. i would would request the side setback to lesson this negative impact. if a setback isn't able to be supported by the commission, and not get the side of the addition is no trinity of idea. for example, providing a three-foot deep notch at -- as a proposed walk-in closet, see page 2, would provide more like that my adjacent window while not significantly decreasing the long length of that closet. i have spoken with pat mcdonald and we'll definitely feel boxed
3:00 am
in by the top floor addition, in part because it is so tall, as she has sewn -- shown. keeping the ceiling height at 8 feet and making the top floor addition slope height 9 feet maximum would lessen the height of the addition of 19 inches could see page 3. it would make it less massive and martin scale with the adjacent houses. the san francisco design guidelines referred to floor to floor height as noted. >> please speak louder into the microphone. >> to make it compatible which seems like a fair request. we share concerns about the proposed façade design too. there is a long row of houses on this block built in the same year that have the same ceiling height and façade character. and 279 as part of this group. so discontinuity is important to maintain in any changes to its façades pick the san francisco design guidelines emphasize the same points. we see


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on