tv [untitled] December 5, 2014 11:00pm-11:31pm PST
proposed guidelines do address signage and it's a large part of that. the updated formula retail controls are not yet effective until some time next month at the earliest so those controls are not yet in place. >> so if the controls are not yet in place, does that mean that if we do the approval today that this location would not be subject to those guidelines even if it hasn't been constructed yet? >> kate stacy city attorney's office it would depend whether the project has all it's permits and achieved rights and whether or not the code would apply at that time. we would have to look at the status of the project. >> okay. >> and what we are attempting
to impose. >> the question is that's one thing we can do. i'm trying to get to whether we can make a motion today so we know what we are getting. is it possible to say on a condition of approval that this project would adhere to our signage guidelines separate and part from the formula retail legislation rather than saying it's up to -- >> it needs to comply with the signage requirements. so i think perhaps the condition that the project sponsor would further work with on the department on the location of the signage. it's my understanding of this use that there are distinctions between each of the locations even though it's formula retail, that's part of the nuance of it that they do make distinctions between the different locations. >> okay, working with staff, we already have our guidelines
as lights and things. okay. excellent. >> commissioners, condition no. 4 under design, it does say signage, any signs on the property shall be made to comply with the requirements of article 6 of the planning code if what you are asking for is that project sponsor shall continue to work with staff, we can add that language to that condition no. 4 that's already part of the motion. >> yup. >> okay. >> that works. >> the next two bullets having to do with the sidewalk. normally a project sponsor applies to the department of public works for permits to use the sidewalk, and so i have two comments about these bullets. first
when dpw issues it's sidewalk permits it can impose conditions on how those permits are used. so these two bullets get a little bit ahead of that process that if the front of that premises is going to be used for cafes or sidewalks they go to dpw and we can craft if they were to apply for a permit to use the sidewalk the planning commission recommends that the sidewalk use cease at 10:00 p.m., but again it's something that dpw ultimately has authority over it's it's sidewalk permitting process. >president cindy wu: it's tricky territory to something that can happen in the future. i think that's what their concern is if the project sponsor went for a sidewalk
permit then that could be included at the time. >> the following section that has to do with noise. the first sentence, "uses shall be performed with the incurred only" that is the premise that it's applying for a use of the sidewalk from dpw and government can't take away the legal right for somebody to apply for a permit. certainly the government could disapprove a permit. i would recommend editing out that if the commission wanted to include that. further in that condition where it's the third sentence to ensure containment of noise including noise and vibrations project sponsor agrees not to have live music if it's open.
and if further complaints, project sponsor agrees to comply. further if there is a noise complaint they have to see if a complaint is observed the city couldn't require a project sponsor to do something. so, again if the commission wanted to include a condition like this, i would again recommend some further refinement of that condition. i also note that there is a noise control condition in the motion already. condition no. 9 that says the premises shall be adequately soundproof or insulated for noise so that incidental noise is not audible in other buildings
and sound proofing is something that staff is go -- going to to have ascertain with the project sponsor and if you want to be more specific on the noise issues like this particular bullet we can craft something like it, but i again would recommend some edits within that condition so it sets forth the process as more use by the city than a government entity. certainly in all of these conditions the project sponsor can agree to with all the parties and the government would not act in a particular way and the government would still pursue whatever enforcement procedures in the code, we would unsue the compliance with the conditional use permits. if we start to impose these other conditions we
have no know how the city can enforce it and what steps it can take to enforce it. it's possible to take that position and the commission could give at a direction to staff to work with this condition, but there are some changes i think would be necessary so the city could properly implement it. >president cindy wu: commissioner richards. >commissioner dennis richards: i think the retractable roof is one. it's closed when there is music. that's the common sense one. that was the condition on the complaint for live music. >> i think for restoring the restaurant the commission had conditions limiting "the
hours" that it could be open already. so we just want to make sure that any limits on the hours in addition to those already made. >> so you are recommending inclusion of this bullet but deleting the first and last sentence. >> i would propose that, yes. >> okay >> the next bullet the project sponsor shall close the doors and the noise shall be adequately controls and the operations should be conducted in a fashion where nearby residents are not affected from patrons and noise vibrations and odors emanating from the use. the phrase "nearby
residents are not affected" it's a difficult standard for the city to ascertain. if a resident says i'm affected, the city doesn't have a gauge to figure out what's the violation or the remedy. again, the jeb -- general thought in that bullet is permissible but we wanted to edit it so it has clearer standards. >> that's a big issue in the upper market. are all these conditions actually grounded from prior experience. these aren't made up. the issues with the doors, they opened them up because they were hot and that one i would leave that one and try to edit it and the patrons
leaving and entering is a huge issue. >president cindy wu: i know there is a desire to get this done today, but in fairness i don't know we should continue it for a week because we are kind of making these decisions but i'm not sure the project sponsor is reviewing all of this, i think there is a general agreement in the spirit of all of this, but since we are getting into wordsmithing, i'm looking for some -- >> i propose we continue it for a week. if we continue it a week you won't have much time to receive the modifications, but if everybody is okay with that then and if the commissioners are okay with getting the language 3 days in advance of the hearing or something along those lines.
>> i would like do this today. >> are we close enough? >> i think i can suggest some edits and the staff can make a motion for these edits. such as "the operations uses shall be conducted in such a fashion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood that result from noise vibration or odors emanating from the use" it's not a terrible specific condition but it allows staff the ability to assess and enforce in accordance with normal procedures. i would defer to the zoning administrators comment on that because it would be an enforcement
issue for the zoning administrator once the planning commission approves the motion, and then the fourth bullet, the last sentence of the fourth bullet where it says "all exterior windows shall be soundproof" the last sentence says under all circumstances windows shall be closed and locked from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.. "i would remove" locked ". >president cindy wu: i think there is agreement on deleting" and locked ". >> in the last sentence where it says the zoning administrator says we shall report to the commission on any resolved matters brought to the attention and non-compliance
with and any conditions contained in this exhibit, again the code has an enforcement process. if the zoning administrator determines there is non-compliance, the zoning administrator can begin enforcement procedures right away and they can come and tell the planning commission about it but it's different from the planning code provisions and if there is a condition in here that needs to be changed then the code requires that an amendment to the permit be filed, be applied for and the commission would have to rehear it as if it were a new conditional use permit. so that sentence could be deleted and the code would operate to resolve those issues the way it normally would. >president cindy wu: okay. city clerk: commissioners, if i may,
commissioner moore, you made the motion and you modified it and the audible to be made available to the maker. >> yes. >> i just have one issue with i think that you said it would be okay to have language about complaints and impact on the neighborhood. i agree with you. i think that one is too vague and we have a process for complaints where if any of the things that would impact them like doors being open and noise from the roof and fl were problems people would make complaint and they would go through the enforcing action. i don't agree if there are vague conditions. what does that mean? handout you -- how do you measure that. >> that sentence could be eliminated
from the entire bullet. you can say that doors are not left open for unnecessary purposes and delete the next sentence and the last sentence, the h evacuate -- h nvac systems open in the building as necessary to allow for the conditions of this motion and if in necessary the system shall have noise. >> i think it might be easier to say they can't have any doors and windows to remain open. then is it okay to open the doors other than for ventilation. >> i think we should delete the rest of it because the method they don't have to open the doors and windows. >> i think that they are not left open. like doors, we have these issues with the board of appeals,
there is a case on the brickyard where it got to where the board of appeals adopted a condition requiring automatic closure on the doors and because the doors can be very much an issue with the sound, but an easier thing is that the windows are non-operable and the doors and windows to remain closed. it's a difficult one to address. don't mean to make light of it. the windows are probably the bigger clearer issue and i would just want to be sure that that doesn't collide with any fire or building code requirements. i think provided that it's not locked. >president cindy wu: commissioner fong? >> >commission vice-president rodney fong: i just want to add this overall comment. i think we all have this same intent. this item comes up which means that lively businesses are opening and i appreciate the
city attorney spending all the time with the exact wording but maybe we can encourage staff to look at a little bit more stringent guidelines and policy to have a stringent regulations on sound in particular in light and sound escapes a restaurant or dining like to -- particularly where there are residents above. i might encourage staff to look at how we put together our package that specifically addresses to sound and light. >> we do already have standard conditions related to this included in the motion as well as good neighbor policies in the planning code itself but we can take another look and see the efficacy of all of those conditions.
>> thank you, i think it would be helpful to the project sponsors to see that in advance. >president cindy wu: okay, ms. stacy, do we have enough clarity on this motion, these conditions. >> president wu, would i be able to run what i think this commission is asking from this motion? >> yes. >> we have an expansion of the noise control, you have condition no. 9 in your motion already, and the language that we would add to that motion comes from page 1 of this agreement and it says all uses shall comply with the conditions imposed by this city's noise ordinance and shall not be audible and vibrations shall be enclosed in this structure.
project sponsor agrees not to permit live music while it's open. we added that to the control provision and then the project sponsor shall -- ensure it provides adequate ventilation provided the doors and windows are not open. and the next one no an amplification to be used at anytime and by the retractable roof and the next is the noise control that is already in the motion. i think the commission already has that as part of it's motion. then the bullet the fourth bullet all exterior windows
shall be add quatly soundproofed. under all circumstances windows shall be closed from 10:00 p.m. until 2 :00 p.m. and the expansion of the community liaison on november 11th. the project sponsor shall work with neighborhoods groups for discussing problems from the restaurant and bar use. it's pretty similar to your condition 11 as part of the motion but we can certainly add that language to that condition. >president cindy wu: thank you. >> does the commission also want the condition about signage as well? >> >president cindy wu: yes. to correspond on signage.
>> with those amendments modified to the maker. if there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion and second to approve this matter with conditions as amended and read into record by the city attorney. on that motion, commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: -- >president cindy wu: commissioner hillis wasn't here. city clerk: i apologize. commissioner johnson, commissioner >commissioner dennis richards: >president cindy wu:. that places us in the next item. you have two items in the discretionary review calendar they are all related and part
of the same project. so i recommend that you hear them altogether as one super large item. so in that case. commissioners, you will hear items 15a and 16a for case number 2013.1521dd v and the zoning administrator will consider case no. 2013.1521ddv and 22v and 24 ord court. there is a single requester on 3 separate building applications and zoning requester will receive 15 minutes and because they
are three separate building applications they will each receive 15 minutes. you will also receive 6 minutes for rebuttal. nieftsdz -- neither of you have to use all 15 minutes and 6 minutes for rebuttal. >president cindy wu: thank you. >> good afternoon, tina chang, planning department staff. the item before you are a request for discretionary review for three building permits applications. two building permits for two lots. one permit is for the vertical and horizontal expansion of the existing single family dwelling unit and 22 ord court and the secretary -- second is the single family home. the third building permit for a new
construction of the single family home at the rear also measuring approximately 25 feet by 118 feet. the two permits at the rear construction are within the varying yards. it was originally scheduled for august 27, 2013 , and then heard with the planning commission to hear the discretionary review request. the project side on the north side in the castro upper market neighborhood and falls within rh 2 zoning. the proposing existing structure at 22 ord court by 8 inches and vertical level to add a master bedroom suite. the third, at
the balcony at the front on the front of the third level has been reduced to two 1/2 feet. there is a reduction on the third floor level. the fourth level is setback approximately 19 1/2 feet from the building wall which is approximately 8 feet deep. the current height measures about 29 feet and the proposed height would become 38 feet. the proposed new construction at the rear of 22 and 24 ord court are 3 story four level buildings with a fourth level that backs up about 3 1/2 feet from the front facade. both provide 3 and 4 bedrooms half bathrooms facing ord court by a rear yard of approximately 29 feet, 7 inches. the proposed structure behind 22 ord court measures
about 27 1/2 feet in height and about 2900 including the garage. the proposed construction measures about 28 feet deep, about 2800-foot including the garage. it's a 1, 2, 3 story building. the topography heads north with a description about 32 feet from ord court to the rear front street. the property to the east is back to about 18 feet. the building arises to another two 2 stories with a setback from 20 feet and appears to be about 100 feet deep. so this building takes up nearly the entire lot. the existing structure at 24 ord court is
one 1 story over the garage. no existing structure is proposed. the end of ord court street is about 16 lots. 14 or 88 percent are through lots. 8 of these lots have two structures at the front of the rear and more than 85 percent of lot coverage and zoning district a zoning yard of 45 percent is required. 6 of the 16 lots have dwelling units facing ord court or 55 percent of lot coverage about 3 percent. the rdt sta scale of the proposed structure to be compatible with the block face and complimentary to the neighborhood in character. actual discretionary review filed, rdt recommended the setback on the proposed level at 22
ord court be continued to the rear. the project supplied with the revisions reflect this recommendation. rdt found this modification would find the light with air property with 2031 state street. to date, the department has received four letters with the project. one came from the eureka valley neighborhood association and the other from neighbors. the letters express concerns about the loss of open space, speculative development and large construction in the neighborhood. the letters were e-mailed directly to but i have copies for anyone who wants to review them. the department commission recommends to take the building and approve the project as recommended by rdt and as amended per the drawings in your
packet and not take the r and approve the new construction at the homes at 22, 23 ord court for the following reasons. the projects do not result in the loss of any dwelling units and section 10 #.1 of the planning code and the project will result in a net gain of two dwelling units. the project will create two family dwelling units. no tennants will be displaced as a result of the project. there will be no significant impact on the location. the r 2 zoning will allow maximum of two zoning units at this lot and will accommodate greater density. this concludes staff's presentation and happy to answer any questions. >president cindy wu: thank you. dr requesters, you have 15 minutes.
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on