Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 27, 2014 4:00pm-4:31pm PDT

4:00 pm
president of the balboa association and we support supervisor campos request for continuance the supervisor has worked hatred open the issues and we want to support him and his support for the neighborhood. thank you >> good evening. i'm the architect for the project i strongly oppose the motion to a continuance it's unfair to the applicants this project has gone on look at it and initialed before the anti clustering legislation it was originally calendared last month and taken off the calendar because the health department had their hearing and then it was heard good weeks ago and postponed
4:01 pm
again, because gp h hearing hadn't occurred and now it would be extremely unfair to the antenna to force him go if boo into an discretionary review position and has a higher bar for him to cross we need to move forward and make a decision now with all fairness to the party and the public thank you. >> hello, i'm margaret i'm for the continuance based on the information i heard that the same man owns waste fall wellness and the book i don't understand the nature.
4:02 pm
>> i'm mike i'm against the continuance on the basis waiting for a lay to go into effect the decision should be made today. thank you >> afternoon i'm al hernandez and the reason why i ask for . >> continuance this body seems to want to wait for a law that may or may not pass i'm asking not to vote for a continuance their approaching saying i want to wait for a law to pass that might not pass thank you. >> had a i'm dennis's i'm almost 60 years old this is looking a shell game those folks who want a continuance are saying their
4:03 pm
against the mcd their legal. so deal with that. justice tallied is justice denied ocean avenue is lucky to go have any businesses out in the gloom their lucky to have any businesses the sun never comes out it would brighten things up with having people come out there. we're - >> on the matter of continuance. >> i'd like to have not to continue it decide that today, you've got all the information to decide today please do. >> my name is ms. james i'm the president of the my community action i'm a nurse and veteran and i'm voting for a continuance
4:04 pm
of this hearing because of supervisor yee saying regarding clustering we need other businesses on ocean avenue and i seen the law come up and crying try to arrest people for rochelle the centers we need a self health center we have two pharmacies out there and i don't see any robberies there but i've seen robberies at some of the others we should continue the matter we don't need this on ocean avenue. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i believe the city attorney had input. >> deputy city attorney marla
4:05 pm
burn i want to remind you under the invested rights doctrine until you'll received our construction on the permit on the site you don't have the right to construct it and the city can expose any laws on the construction from my understanding of talking with the staff the legislation was, in fact, signed by the may on may 13th that is in effective on june 12th so unless the practice writing project can get all it's permits and the construction the city can oppose the effective
4:06 pm
election on prevention the committee can choose to hear it i and i recommend you not do so or so but apply the law and it has all the discretionary review powers and alternatively the commission can continue the matter. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i want to respond i'm city supportive of 0 continues not for the reasons that a lot of people are assuming to push this into a different process. this commission has been supportive of mcds and voted for countless of them we've supported and expanding mcds with the issue of continuance. so our supportive has been strong it is party to that this
4:07 pm
is the pending litigation pending obligations it dpw has questions in the prior or the existing owner or who owns the current mcd that's been challenged which is still pending. you'll probably fill that permit and there's litigation you say you're the owner of the made the last testimony was about the existing owner the new owner says he's still the owner we're waiting to clear up that position not to send there this into another process. and decide whether clustering is an issue that's an issue regardless of the made process so we can maybe open my side
4:08 pm
elsewhere >> commissioners there's a motion and second to continue this matter until july 17th. commissioner borden. no. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore >> commissioner sugaya. no. commissioner fong. commissioners that motion fails three to 2. 3 i's >> i'm sorry the motion does pass because otherwise, we'd, or be stuck that motion moved and gets continued to july 17th because a majority of the commissioners voted in favor of the continuance >> we have two other matters. >> do we keep that that i commissions on 16 a and b on
4:09 pm
broadway restrict street mandatory discretionary review on a demolition and construction. >> g good evening. i'm christen planning staff. the item is a mandatory discretionary review for broderick. the project is to demolish a one story single-family dwelling and construction another one the property is located on the west side of broadway restrict street. the subject lot measures 25 feet by 94 feet deep and continuing lot area. the lot continues a
4:10 pm
single-family residence. the property is located within the rh 3 district. the surrounding neighborhood has 2, 3, 4 residential dwellings and the block facing the property while buildings in the middle of the block have 3 dwelling units. adjacent to the corner on broadway restrict the adjacent north of the subject building is a 2 subject over the garage the replacement provides a two car garage. the ground floor will contain the parking garage and it has additional one and a half baths. the three and four stories have
4:11 pm
the common areas. the second unit is also proposed it includes a 23 feet rear yard and the project was reviewed by the residential design team the context of the existing development >>okay. . the depth of the set back at the rear of the project addresses the conditions and provides the air conditions and the materials applied in a camera expression will not be disrecipient to the neighborhood. today, we have calls from adjacent residents on broadway restrict in opposition to the project the department received one letter from pete the owner
4:12 pm
of the same adjacent building in support of the project and lastly they've challenged phone calls with others about the project they recommend you not take the dr and new construction of the over the garage building it is consistent with the general plan and complies with the planning code. the project meets the criteria set forth in the planning code and the project result in a net gape of one dwelling unit and creates one single-family unit and given the scale there is no capacity to the muni facility. the rh 3 district court allows 3 dwelling units on the lots with a greater density and several of
4:13 pm
the surrounding buildings accommodate the descriptive. and although the structure proposed for demolition is more than 50-years old the adjacent building is not a landmark that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> dr requester. >> that's a mandatory arrest project sponsor. >> please. >> okay. i'll the architect i'll be presenting this and donald strickland the owner. before we start with the specification we need to look at what's there and the complexities of the neighborhood and take those elements to the design process. what we have right now ding.
4:14 pm
two things actually, the big tree we actually like and made sure we designed it around the tree and have this 1932 building it's had a lot of poisoned maintenance but that's no reason to turn anything down we got into the structure apparently, the foundation were made by sea sand so all the fountains have to come out they have beautiful structural the electrical, plumbing is all from 1932 so by the time we fix everything there's not unify left it would be much more difficult to fix it then to start over. that's part 2 i want to get into the general neighborhood. the general neighborhood you'll
4:15 pm
see a lot of mainly 4 or 3 story some smaller 2 story buildings and a lot of flat apartments. so when we decided conceptually to start with what we wanted to put there - here's our building. we felt that was important to maintain something that a family can live in you don't want to have a area of smaller units because we had a single-family there. we choose to do two units that will function as a single-family that doesn't two things first of all, maintain the scope and scale in terms of height and depth and increase the efficiency. the third thing talk about the design process.
4:16 pm
first thing we do is send out our neighborhood notification we need to talk to people quite often they know more than we do we had two people contact us from the initial outreach one a gentleman from the apartment building next door over here and he just kind of shrugged his shoulders the second person pete if i mispronounce his name i'm sorry peter. and we had john and i had at least four meetings including on site we got into his building and into his backyard and he had 3 actually 5 by 3 major concerns
4:17 pm
the first one was a white well in the middle of the property where the kitchens are we got into the lower unit and looked at the kitchen the second thing was a he didn't, you know, there's smaller rear yards he didn't want that he was concerned about the materials and the fenway basic things. i think it's probably better to look at how we took those concerns and incorporated into our final design. right now it's a little bit small this little photograph. right now there is no matching light well on the existing property i'm sure you're aware of we need to provide the light well, it's 85 to 90 percent we decided to match the length of the light
4:18 pm
well, and the other concern he had that would be the light well here. the other concern oh, i'm sorry i didn't realize i'll make it quick we set the third floor back and matched the light well, because we have to have power pits we moved those back and we're going to build a fence on his side. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> we may have questions for you. open this up for public comment open this up for public comment is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i have questions for the architect i didn't see a picture in our presentations of the rendering there's something on the cover of the presentation that looks bizarre and it does
4:19 pm
let's go to the elevation and the person doing the rendering there's this big tree oh, much better. >> that's the one in the - >> predominantly in the neighborhood you see a lot of brick and stone and masonry we want to use natural lime stone the problem with stucco is a generic term we're trying to pull and the colors obviously we were very careful to match the colors and warm it up natural wood and to give it a little bit of a flare we wanted to ice stainless steel you don't have to paint it.
4:20 pm
>> generally it looks like the base seems to be somewhat square a that part is okay. i prefer traditional windows but there's more maintenance on those. i guess it looks generally hard to tell but i'm assuming the color with the sides. the lighter colors are the natural stone and the doors are wood we're also increasing we have a required set back we're going to landscape that we have planter and permeable material
4:21 pm
to soften the pedestrian experience >> from what i can tell it will fit in itself a conceptually furthermore, area built around the 20s and early 30s it looks like your building is going to fit in and how many square feet of the unit. >> we set them up as 3 bedroom units and the idea of the 3 and a half basket we're trying to set this occupy for single-family it would be nice to get families. >> the marina they serve as larger more single-family homes i'm assuming you have a couple of thousand square feet. >> yeah. >> that will fit the bill for
4:22 pm
people who can stay in san francisco and have large families and have the experience in a larger single-family home. >> peter grew up in a house and planted those trees actually. >> okay. thank you. commissioner sugaya >> i powerful to not take dr and approve it. >> second. >> on that motion as proposed. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden >> commissioner hillis. commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya and you commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. that places you on items 17 a and b for the next case at the
4:23 pm
456, 7th street mandatory discretionary reviews. >> good evening commissioner president wu and members of the planning commission i'm presenting a you mandatory discretionary review for a don't guess of a single-family dwelling a proposed new 3 story 2 family the address is 4 hundred and 5627 street. the current building is owner accompanied and contains 9 hundred quiet with one bedroom and one bath no off-street
4:24 pm
parking and the two family dwelling with one unit on the ground floor about 9 hundred and 23 square feet and the second unit occupies the second and third floors with 2 thousand 2 hundred and 61 square feet e square feet with 2 off-street parking spaces. the proposed building has been reviewed by your design team and the rtd said it's consistent with the residential design lines and compromised with the planning code and we sent out and staff received e-mails and phone calls from the one tenant
4:25 pm
who resides in the adjacent 6 unit apartment building if you see the i'm sorry the picture - okay first in the middle that's the current structure to be demolished the one story single-family home and this picture shows the adjacent tenant their just not u unit is phenomenon the third floor and those windows are the unit living room windows facing a lighted core. the tenant or the owner of the apartment building are concerned that the proposed building will be built on the common sideline light current light will be
4:26 pm
obstructed to the some of the units surrounding this light court. including light to the living room windows at that tenants unit. staff made a visit and looked at it, you know, checked out the windows looked through the windows and the light court and revisited the design team again and reviewed all the evidence and also a pact which you have from the adjacent tenant and the tenant basically described they're concerned and included a
4:27 pm
photograph showing the current light from their living room to the light court. and our evaluation is this light court the adjacent apartment building is part of the light off the building and that provides adequate light to those units surrounding the light court it serves as part of the driveway allowing vehicles to go through and pausing behind the apartment from and to 27th street. the light core and the project sponsors pact you can see the dimension about 18 feet long around the common sideline and about 16 feet wide. that's why we believe this light court provides the light to the
4:28 pm
surrounding unit. it's self-sufficient and the proposed building will not have significant impact on light to those units. and also the concerns not only, you know, reviewed by the residential design team also take - taken to the department of city managers and they concurred with the rtd determination therefore no changes to the current proposal. and out of the total 18 demolition criteria the property project populated demolition
4:29 pm
will meet 10 of them 3 of the criteria are not applicable and the project doesn't meet 5 of the 18 criteria. in conclusion, we feel the project will not result in the annual adaptation of current housing in the city on the contrary it will increase one unit to the cities housing stock from one to two units they will be evicted base its owner opted and given the skill there will w be no significant impact on the street capacity or muni system although it's more than 45 years old the resource elevation
4:30 pm
determines the current structure is not a historic resource this is within the rh2 zoning district so the proposed two unit building is compatible with the surrounding current development along the subject block and finally we building again, the project will result in no significant light reduction therefore we recommend the commission approve the proposed demolition and to two family dwelling that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you >> project sponsor please. >>