Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240714

SFGTV Government Access Programming July 14, 2024

I share the same opinion as you. I work a little bit always at the first block of fillmore. This is a small street, large alleyway. All of the lots are small. All of the houses are originally built because of the size of the lots. Also, i agree, the developers being more than gracious by literally placing the easement, and sharing it with a neighbor. I am in support. A couple of questions for staff. Do you know whether the dr was filed based on the original scheme, they rather than the revised scheme . I think there is a big difference. Right. Yeah, i would defer to the project sponsor on that. Though dr was taken on the site permit plans. We have revised it based on discussions with our team. Based on that that is the plans that you have before you. Has a revised set been provided to the dr requester . Yeah, it has been provided. Okay, maam. It is provided as part of the packet which is uploaded to the website and is public information. Second. Maam, you are out of order. Until they are asked a question. I assume all of those lots have been subdivided, and required a variance . Um. Yes, looking out the parcel map there are um, it is the nature of the block to have smaller lot development. The Property Line between the subdivided lots do not match up, is not also correct . Well, that was the subject property was a subject of effort previous variance granted by the zoning administrator. I understand that, im saying that subdivision compared to the one next to it, that the rear Property Lines do not line up, is that correct . They do not. That is correct. They do not line up. I do not have the previous variance in front of me. I am not sure. Okay. Ms. Arnold, i am in support of the project. I think it is a sensitive project. The only thing i would like to ask is that since this particular small block does not have any roof decks, that is your roof deck setback properly once there is a roof area on the other part of the roof, on roof as part of the submittal . Do you see that . There is a little outline, im only taking a third of the area. I know that. What i would like to see is a drawing that shows the area surrounding the roof deck as being an unoccupied roof. We have seen, unfortunately in building things, i would like to have that recorded as the roof area that we are proving today. I would like to state again that the street itself does not have roof decks. We are basically adding something, which i believe is appropriate yet i would like that to be modified in a manner that theres an open floor plan. Any other questions . No, that is all. One quick question, what commissioner more is indicating, would it fit our new roof deck policy . I moved to take 2018009355drp and establish dr and approve the project. As revised. I think its an overstatement commissioner richards to say we have a roof deck policy. The commission has consistently pushed for criteria which are being expressed on this particular roof design. We are working on a roof policy, that is hopefully reflecting what we are saying here. In the spirit of what we, all as a group have to talk about. In accordance to the roof deck policy which we have not yet approved. That is in flux, i would suggest that condition to what commissioner moore said, the unoccupied area of the roof be noted in the drawing. And it reflects the past not doing three years. You are okay with the placement of the roof deck . You just want to make sure that the other portion of the roof is clearly designated or delineated as non occupied . Correct. Okay. I will take dr. Approve the project as is to make sure that the portion of the roof that doesnt have a roof deck is clearly delineated that it is not to be occupied. Very good. If there is nothing further there is a motion to be seconded to take dr and approve the project as has been revised. Noting on the plans that the area of the roof deck the area of the roof that is unoccupied. On that motion. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six like a zero. Items 19 and 20 through the chair will be called up together , as they are adjacent to one another and part of the same development proposal. Case numbers 2017000987drp02 excuse me, folks. 2017000987drp04, 25 17th avenue and 27 17th avenue. These are discretionary reviews. Each dr applicant will get a five minute presentation and the project sponsor will get a ten minute presentation. Good afternoon. David winslow planning Staff Department architect. The item before you are requests for discretionary review. To a building applications. The first to construct a rear horizontal addition at levels 13 at a horizontal front addition of the fourth a story of an existing singlefamily dwelling. The proposal also includes legalization of previous demolition, threestory bay production, deck and chimney on the south facade performed with all benefit of a permit at 25 17th avenue. There are two dr requesters. The first Jerry Dressler of 40, 17th avenue, neighbor to the east of the proposed project is concerned with four primary issues. First, the work was performed without the benefit of a permit. Including the removal of a threestory bay extending over a lot line. Number two, the size and massing of the proposed building is not compatible with the height and scale of the existing nearby buildings. Three, abating the violation of removing the bay should not be allowed due to the historical heritage of the building. The lot splits would be contingent upon the removal of building features that straddle the new subdivided lot lines, unless the approval was not considered in the lot line split. Due to inaccuracies of the plan provided by the project sponsor. A number four, the proposed project is not in form to the residential guidelines specifically designed the scale of the buildings to be compatible with the height and depth of surrounding buildings. And to articulate the building to minimize impacts on privacy on adjacent properties. Specifically the proposed deck at the front and rear of the fourth of story are excessive and intrusive to privacy. The second dr requester, alan, the neighbor to the rear and west of the proposed project is concerned with the following issues. Similarly, one, work was performed without the benefit of a permit. Including the removal of the bay over the side lot line and the project does not conform to the same residential Design Guidelines related to scale, privacy and light. The department has received ten letters in opposition and no letters in support. The department to review recommendation, because of the work that was performed without the benefit of a permit, we had some abatement. The permitted scope of work for bpa, number 2016 oh one oh 6349. To replace the existing foundation with a new Mass Foundation and bpa to demolish all plaster, remove dry rot into rotted across entire southwall. Stucco repair in kind. Following a site visit by planning staff on august 205th , 2016. August 25, 2016. Due to further pending work for the project, currently before the commission, staff require the project sponsor to complete a Historic Resource evaluation to determine whether the building was historically significant. Prior to reviewing the permits to legalize the unpermitted work, the building was reclassified as a category c, no Historic Resource. On march 20, 2017, that happen on march 20, 2017, on may 18, 2017 a permit was filed to abate the violation, and legalize the removal of the site deck as well as address interior work at the site lodge level. That is under bpa which was issued on august 1, 2017 and appealed on august 2, 2019. They appeal was granted by the board of appeals on september 13, 2017. The board required that the scope of work related to the abatement of the tbi and planning violations be removed from the permit under the appeal and incorporated into the larger project currently before the commission. To date the project sponsor has paid all fees related to the enforcement phase and has provided timely responses to all staff requirements and requests. Therefore no penalties have accrued. The permit currently before the commission would not only allow for the proposed addition 25 17th avenue in new construction at 27 17th avenue , but also abate the violation to the end [inaudible] the departments preservation staff enforcement team, and Residential Design Advisory Team review of the project found that the legality of the two separate lots had been complete determined by San Francisco public works. They have two legally complying lots. Senior packet the attached letter from the director of public works and the city and county lansurveyor. While removal of portions of the building straddling the lot line without the benefit of a permit is an appropriate, staff preservation determined that this building, all the work of up prominent local architect is not significant nor eligible. As an individual or part of a Historic District. Furthermore at the side bay was not original to the house. A subsequent addition from around 19191938. You can see that determination and your pocket. The existing building retains the features of its front facade except for modest addition of the fourth story which is set from the front and maintained continuity with the maintain character. The rear additions to the 13 floors extend no further than the adjacent building to the north and step back as they ascend with the third story incorporating a 5foot site setback against the property, to the south. Not to create a building mass that is out of scale or blocks access to open space. Number five, the Department Found that the amount, size and location of the decks are generally consistent with the departments criteria minimizing potential nuisance to Neighboring Properties and they are setback from open space. With the one exception of the front deck it is adjacent to a window of a neighbor to the north. Therefore staff recommends the front deck be set back 5 feet from all building edges and that the reared deck should also incorporate solid guardrails. This concludes my presentation on 25 17th avenue. The second pair of initiate a public request for discretionary review are Building Permit application 201806252842. To demolish a garage structure occupying a portion of the rear yard and construct a new four story Single Family 27 17th avenue. This is a lot that is immediately south of 25 17th avenue. The first dr requester, number 20, 18th avenue is concerned with the following issues. The work was performed without the benefit of a permit, including the removal of a threestory bay extending over the side lot line has created a need heightened review along with moderate monitoring to ensure the project is completed in accordance with the code. That project is not conform to several residential Design Guidelines namely buildings that need to be compatible with the patterns and architectural features of the surrounding buildings. Buildings that need to be designed to be compatible with the scales in the height and depth surrounding the buildings. The form is compatible with out of surrounding buildings. The placement on scale of architectural details are windows that contribute to the architectural character of the building. Lastly, a building that articulates itself to minimize impacts to light and privacy. Quantity and size of the proposed deck on this building are claimed to invade privacy on buildings, not on the avenue as well as Properties Across the street on 17th avenue. The exception of onyx chorney circumstances exist since it is contingent on approval of 25 17th avenue and are designed to respect the adjacent keylock. His proposed alternatives include reducing the size of the project are approximately 4,000 square feet, reducing the size of the deck on the second floor to 6 feet deep and removing a fire pit area and removing the third floor deck, removing the fourth floor deck where youd providing a 5foot site setback from the south lot line at an approximate and an approximate 67. 5foot rear setback along that south lot line. The second dr requester, a neighbor across the street to the east of the proposed project is concerned with the following issues. The Property Owner failed to submit a site survey which is a requirement for new construction. That the project does not conform to the residential Design Guidelines as just mentioned above. And that the proposed building is contingent upon approval of 2,717th avenue prepared to the north and the adjacent property to the south which has not been considered adequately in the design. Providing a site survey, reducing a scale at the rear to be consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. Three allow a reasonably sized deck, single rear deck and four reduce the size of the project to approximately 3500 feet. Same number of letters, basically because this is one project, we have ten letters in opposition and know letters in support. The project application, our review and recommendation ascertained that the project application does in fact include a site survey by a licensed lansurveyor. The Residential Design Team reviewed this project and did confirm that this project does present exception onyx ordinary person circumstances with respect to height, scale, neighborhood character, lights, privacy and parking. Staff recommends the following modifications to respond to the issues brought forth by the dr requesters. Number one, the project appears to be over parked with a garage for the more than maximum allowable cars to be part. Staff recommends reducing the size of the garage by removing the demising wall between the parking and residential space approximately 5. 5 feet forward which would allow for independent vehicular access 2 i get three cars. While the department does not evaluate the scale of a residential project on Square Footage or floor area ratios, the project was massed to disproportionately surrounding neighbors. Staff therefore recommends that the department asked with a scale of the buildings at the rear, and maintain access for and incorporate the following features. Reduce the horizontal expansion at the rear of the second floor by approximately 5 feet. Two, to reduce the horizontal expansion of the rear of the third floor by approximately 8 feet to column line 6 while maintaining a 5foot site setback on the upper floors. And, number three, setback the front of the fourth of story 15 feet from the building wall. The approximate average between the two adjacent buildings upper floors. Lastly, providing to address some of the architectural character features suggested providing angled bays on glass on all sides of the front. Setting back the decks a minimum of 5 feet from all Property Lines and building edges consistent with the department criteria. With the proper setbacks, step believes the location of the size of the decks are appropriate. Staff recommends therefore that the commission take this and approved with the above modifications. This concludes i am here to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you for that very thorough description. I am not going to make you repeat that. I wanted to apologize for the longwinded. All right. Can we hear from dr requester number one . Excuse me, the sponsor is asking the commission to approve two, 6,000 squarefoot home, with seven external decks on the street where the average home is less than 4,000 square feet with one deck. The proposed plans disrespect the existing character of our neighborhood and the citys planning process. Both homes are overscale for the block. The Planning Department re review of 27 17th avenue identified the need for complete revision of the plans not 11th hour tweaks. The plans of the sponsor submitted are inaccurate. I hired architect to review the plans. They determine the plans under state the size of the two proposed homes by 840 square feet. The commission should not waste time hearing the sponsors 11th hour changes to bogus plans. The adjacent house to the north of number 25 is the largest of the townhouses come on the street. The proposed 25 and 27 are even larger creating a massing problem with three monster houses in a row. The commission should require the sponsor to restart the process, and submit entirely new , accurate plans where the homes are in scale with the existing homes. Misstatements in the discretionary reviewing analysis. The homes north of 25 17th avenue do not have a generally consistent alignment in there rear yards. Number 17 has the greatest westward expansion. The application for 27 17th avenue includes a map, and not a Boundary Line survey as required by state law. The map labeled architectural site survey, submitted with the december 2018 plans is not a survey. Attached is a draft copy, a document that should have been filed as survey record. This was filed with dpw when the plans were filed in december of 2018. The status of this application, as of yesterday is pending is the middle. The existing building does not retain the features of its front facade. The sponsor demolished a portion of the ground floor facade without permit. Letters from dpw are not conclusive regarding lots 25 and 26. An email exchange between mr. Sanchez and mr. Stores, the city surveyor was unable to say the two lots were legally created. Mr. Stores responded he is working with the City Attorney towards resolution. The surveyor who prepared the coc application believes his clients Title Company might not accept the coc as per the attached email. A formal, written, legal opinion from the City Attorney that lots 25 and 26 were legally created is needed prior to the approval of permits. Sponsor statement. The sponsor has not brought the home at 25 17th avenue into compliance. It has been illegally straddling two lots for the last 30 months. The only way to bring the project into compliance is for the sponsor to start over by submitting a lot split application for the Planning Department. The route that should have been taken. The board of appeals denied the and allow the sponsor to complete the foundation replacement. The sponsor abandoned the work in june of 2018, without completing it. The second abatement permit should also be denied. The sponsor received a title policy for lot 21, a single, 50foot lot.

© 2025 Vimarsana