Eventually, if its comfortable, to move some that are not printed basically. Were trying to save paper. And so if theres a way that folks are comfortable with using some electronic version, that would be helpful in the production world. Chairman great. Awesome. Thats all for the other committee business. Chairman any further comments . Members . Wow. Meeting adjourned. We made it. Chairman are we adjourned . Yes. Okay, thanks. Okay. Good afternoon and welcome to september 3, 2019 regular meeting of the San Francisco board of supervisors. Welcome back, supervisors. I guess we are going to have another exciting round of meetings. Until we take a break in the winter. Madame clerk we please call the. Clerk thank you, mr. President. [roll call] you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of america. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indiv
Pressman ship. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is andy levine. I am an architect, i live in the 400 block of 29th street, three doors down from the property. My family has lived there for 22 years now, and we have been very excited that theres to be a project to take away this abandoned building that is more than 20 years that has been empty. We saw the drawings for the project, for the first time last wednesday. It was not mailed out, as part of the 311 process because of the conditional use area i left a message for mr. Townes, he did not call me back. We left an email, week later he replied to the email. It turns out they were the wrong drawings area their outdated drawings area he sent us updated drawings, they are very close. So, for the last week it has been a hectic time to try to elicit a response from the neighbors to talk about what we thought the project was good or bad. In the process, i did send to the commission the petition that we have
The ceqa extension date of the existing two story with the was approximately 3190, and that the proposal that was reviewed is ready 940. I am not in is 3940. I am not entirely sure if ceqa was before or i think it was done at the same time. I am sorry. When this home was sold, and says clearly it was 1640 square feet. Wheres the discrepancy . Sometimes what areas you include in your Square Footage will be different depending on who is calculating. I am just saying, i cant speak to how they calculated what their Square Footage is area sometimes they dont count the garage, or storage space. There was a crawlspace that was not a habitable space. Prior to the proposal here, was to actually make that habitable race. I dont know if that area was included in the calculation. The only numbers i have to that effect in this case report from the ceqa review. Thank you. One more question for planning, on this, so we go to commissioner richards, bill back what was there, what is plannings disagreem
22 and others. How much concrete would we need to pour . Im not an engineer but my friends came back and said, well , based on the foundation alone, you would need 1308 cubic yards. The reports that you handed in only have 150. D. B. I. Handed in 150. That doesnt include any of the walls. Im wondering, where is the rest of the special report . The engineer has the report. Wouldnt they be handed in by d. B. I. . Im not sure why they are not there was geotechnical observations during the excavation and per the permits we pulled, that was reviewed by d. B. I. Thank you. I appreciate it. I look at this and i go, you know, this was supposed to answer all the questions i had last go around and it didnt. It actually raises more questions. You know, you look at the sidewall and you look at the back walls, you are about 100 cubic feet short on the tests. The fire issues and im just like, well, im overwhelmed. I would love to see a summary on everything not just handing all the reports and raw d
No, i wasnt. But i am very familiar with that section of the Building Code and thats been an enormous frustration. As a retired c. P. A. , im used to opining, but opining on financial matters. I get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103 a . I think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, its important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. Thank you for explaining that. The question i think is a real question. I would like to have an answer to it. We may not have that answer today. I would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. Thats the only comment of where i have Common Ground with your comments. I personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. But the building as a replacement building is too large. Th