The project it is really hard to describe what it looks like i wish you could come out and look at it this structure is huge huge compared to Everything Else around it just come and look at it that will ruin the whole neighborhood yes, thank you and your speaker card if you could hand it in okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im not not really here to talk to you guys but since this project is already horde and you are going to interfere with this this appeal will to the change our minds im here to talk to you guys the appellants earlier. Excuse me. Thats not the appropriate use of the time if you have something to speak to the commission you can do that but if you want to the same speech. You want to identify yours. Im sonya a group of renter that is really feeling terrified were feeling terrified and those kinds of things this is one how is it seems like it didnt matter when we have a need thats exactly when just one house matters a lot when we im not Mission People there are very terrified of new development they think theyre to get pushed out that seems more fair it has a i have an emotional reaction when i see neighbors claj that the new house is not going to look nice i feel like this is insult to all of us who are actually afraid of being displaced and we really need to live in a city that is easy to build if reliable and friendly to new building whether one small you know Development One house whether it is thirty unit or 4 unit somewhere else were not going to get to our 5 thousand unit a year if not easy to build thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, im daniel a local 38 Union Plumber a member of sf bar the American Federation let the man build his house let him build. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Im living on ashbury the property opposite the proposed development has been appointment this is a broad based local appeal and id like to also refer to what was said one of the people who supported this moved out and didnt want to put up with the consequences of this development it notice a over structure it is a nice architecturally home on the corner of the sf street we feel is being defaced and stick out like a sore thump if ever the wishes of one person over the wishes of the community that is one of the occasions and in light of this appeal i hope youll reconsider that appeal that effects a large number of residents thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners im you howard im in support of project being built youve horde it if you compare the appellants property on clayton street its a 3 thousand 2 hundred plus square feet for records the family is 3 thousand plus significantly smaller in photo copy and the garage the appellant owns next door it is in an rh1 zoning the appellant added a third occupant it says 1024 a and ton 26 clayton he lives in a rh2 zone cereal not in compliance . The third time about a view from the roof deck what someones home looks like is their business the impartial next door is deeper and has a roofer deeper than the photo copy of our how is it is hard to say your home is a monster i ask you to allow the gentleman to build his home. Thank you. Next speaker please. Ofld ofld please. I am micro live on ashburyburg street this should produce a variance because the developer purchased this small lot intoirl unstubble u suitable for the development the developers is addressing a reciprocation inspirational of his own making my neighbor will suffer a huge loss of light and air by the height of the proposed building it will stick out beyond the homeland on downey my neighbors are bathrooms facing the east will see is giant building on downey street that effects their privacy and that will be reduced the entire south facing on 1051 will be covered and their gardens will loss the sunlight the diagram you basically see the outline of the 1051 and the proposed structure and as you can see the proposed structure greatly overshadows the property and effects not only that property with the light and air from the additional between clayton and downey i ask the board grant the reduction thank you you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is johnny i had previously written a letter to the commissioners i think you may have that my name may not be familiar at any rate the reason im here is that i am is also opted to the scale of this building this lot was very obviously designed to be left open tiny tiny which is why the photo copy is seven hundred square feet however if that were going to be just a two or three story home like all the rest of the homes in that area it would then noted a similar roofline as designed not do that at all it will not only be filling up most of the lot and indeed as i pointed out in my letter deprive the homes that face and built on clayton street deprive those homes of the Morning Light but it will also take away a lot of the view from those of us that live option those building and lot so as i do i live on ashbury benchmarking in a building that has 9 apartment we will be deprived of our view and the rooflines where not meet suddenly a large house that is out of scale and that will tower above the other kinds of houses there and it will therefore not fit in and i know it will as you saw mr. Resigns petition and all the signatures it is why is. Folks have assigned on and protest okay. So i thank you kind kindly thank you for your time and consideration. Any other Public Comment. No. You spoken before here. Good evening, members of the board im on ashbury as ive testified i am saddened by the neighborhood wars waged by the Planning Commission against homeowners that want to expand their homes to the growing needs or simply due to the fact years of saving their money they wish to improve in their standard of living and stay in San Francisco this is other example an apartment that will not in any way to be impacted is determined to stop the construction of a fully code compliant project that was approved twice in past year with variance as mr. Sanchez as pointed out this time around the proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission and this board during the variance appeal and now in front of of this board again, the only claim the appellant has not made previously before is the new Corona Heights sports by supervisor wiener keep in mind this promoted home is not only outside the area under the interim Zoning District but outside of supervisor wieners district as such it cant and does not apply before you is a welldesigned respectful project and this was designed properly the home which is will be placed between who existing buildings will not impact neighborhoods to the north at that time families are leaving the city this home had been occupied the project sponsor roughs to participate process he does not wish to create bad faith with either group please deny this appeal t any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, well take rebuttal starting with the appellant are you mr. Haney to join our 3 minutes into 6 together . Yes . Okay you want to go first. Yeah. I appreciate the comments from the attorney and the public, however i think the bottom line role is a this is not going to effect the city hourtd this is a luxury home which is going to be probably i mean the house next door is 2 thousand square feet it will be over 3 million not an issue of Public Housing it is about Affordable Housing this is not to build an Affordable House i am sure the people moving into those extremely expensive homes they dont have children that is not about families the issue of the view from his desk and by the way i didnt know dave he didnt approach me i approached him were actually not asking for a decrease in height of the building only the variance be decreased from 7 photo to 4 photo it will still block the view from the deck over his garage thats not an issue the thing this house should jet out into the back hell it is not an issue davies home is on a single lot it could go from street to street thats his lot this lot was created by this lot i dont understand why the city authorizes a lot and requires a huge variance and know hindsight is 20 20 but as i stated before the bottom line you could build a reasonable home without a large evaporates there are were proposing to build over 3 thousand square feet home it is to maximize profit they could earlier build a smaller home without a variance thank you. Id like to talk about a little bit about followup with the das comments and the typography i want to asphyxiate the point by drawing arrows i hope you see those those indicate the down slope so it is magnified by its impact on the additional so theres down slope in all those directions every to the has an enormous impact were grateful to the Planning Commission for recognizing they reduced it but if we look at the profile the general average profile increase an enormous impact to the alley and also surfacing facing east and west im going to put a few comments from kicker scott not here today but i want to point out a couple of points he maids on august the 7 the Zoning Administrator balanced the con strident with the lots and required cigarette butt of the roar rearing to reduce the light and air were saying it is two extensive at 7 feet the project sponsor would have he said he was not required to apply for a variance with the adjacent lots front on different streets this argument is false bans a recent survey and in addition theres a lot of discussion this is just for a family this is for for the owners family it is not speculative investment from the outset deed of trust recorded in april of 2014 transfers all rent and leases solid this is a sell on process and not a small how is it is very creative how he represented from seven hundred square feet it is not seven hundred square feet it is too 34 hundred and theyve hundred quote and actually, im getting those members numbers from the selling material is this a guy wanting to live there with his family clearly not hes a known speculator and we havent mentioned a full aircraft and this 4 to the easements in reality is not usually space it is absolutely not usually space so and, of course supervisor wiener resolution did not apply i recognize it didnt apply but the sentiment of the city the sentiment of the different areas clamoring for supervisor wieners legislation those kind of speculative units are not acceptable in conclusion major neighborhood appeal support and commissioner sugaya supports it and 8 year occupant all left were asking for a modest reduction of 3 photo or perhaps more if he would be so could i thank you. Im sorry no more time for you to speak. Well hear if or from permit holder. The size of the home the 7 square feet sis to two bedroom levels parking lot at ashberg street the left side is 26 feet deep any foster encroachment so ill leave it at that and here for questions. Question is the property for sale. No whats the document. Im not sure how the appellant got it at some point during the process theres a broker that came to him have interest in off market sale it was not on the market and not now and he intends to live there with his family thank you. Mr. Sanchez nothing im sorry maam, the time for Public Comment has passed and the Zoning Administrator has indicated nothing foster commissioners the matter is submitted. Second bite of the apple well, not acquit in my opinion in the following acceptance we heard the appeal of a variance. Uhhuh. We did not hear an appeal on the project i understood the project was presented, however my comments that led to adapting or excuse me. Uphold living it was predicated one the rear yard building line didnt combroechl into the rear yard and the mid block open space what the variances allow, and, secondly, where the streets turns and created a line of the lot and created did the thats why i voted for upholding the surveillance im not no favor of this project i feel that it is out of scale open the rear and that it is not contextual to the neighborhood im not upholding the permit. Madam president. Nothing at the moment im not sure i august with my. Im sorry but public testimony is over its not okay to i ask you to sit down those are the rules of this Commission One of things they asked for us to consider cutting back will that change our mind about the project. No, we voted on the variance i dont think that impacts anything the appellant have brought forcibly forgot has nothing to do with on the opposite side of the block and street what has impacted on one of the appellants the height of the building the fact it is 5 stories in the rear other thing i explicit mentioned to create the 5th floor basically excavating significantly from the gray line process process. What is for us not architects what do you mean. It means theyre digging down if the rear yard theres a significant retaining wall but if you look at the existing grade line it runs more than half of the floor in terms of height. Whats the difference between the height. In terms of what we allowed. Right. We allowed basically that the rear yard Property Line can extend beyond the planning code mandated rear yard requirement so wouldnt the plans be the same the only difference an elevator and other things removed since we saw it in japanese. In terms of no. Theres variance but the variance allowed the rear wall of that building to go further into what would have been a code required rear yard. Well, ill say that most of what i heard was asking us to change what has been approved by the variance this is a rehearing i wasnt hearing quests requests to do other things to the building. I think this is correct from the presentation oral presentation by the two appellants not necessarily the same argument being made by other speakers in the public forum side. Commissioners . I dont think to be honest it appears to be the same footprint that was placed before us in january i do think that the additional story is a little bit much but the each plate is seven hundred square feet not a larger larger large footprint. Ill make a motion and see what happens commissioner wilson any thing to add. I dont know im thinking about it frankly. Frankly frank frank you, you want to make a motion . If i which is to make a motion i want to provide enough detail for us to believer or be able to compliment ever examine the ramification therefore im leaning. Continuation. No leaning to try to provide some further flushing out of the ramification would be theres two option one should is it this motion pass it would require either a reduction of the top floor or eliminates of the top floor floor. Yeah. I see thats where youre going. I think you know speaking from what i my experience with the Residential Design Team you know im surprised they especially\ask for a set back on the top floor to reduce the rear. Would you go for a set back on the top floor. Thats a minimum. So a couple of things if i may would you like to invite mr. Larkins on the professional. Thats fine we didnt get a residential design report we got the dr and the other report. Mr. Sanchez it found the original design with the elevator was consistent with the guidelines the Planning Commission and administrative review are more restrictive ill agree with commissioner fung when those matters are typically before us we advocate and is the Planning Commission can make it more riefktd so to clearly delineate that commissioner fung youll upheld it and cigarette butt the top level and rear and stepping it from the rear wall judging but the plans there is half in the linger this is reduced in size and perhaps a small deck or balcony but this is not for this board to decide. Thank you for explaining that. Why not flush out iowa or what we can go ahead down or done im willing to go with a set back. Commissioners. Im not sure maybe we should continue this sometimes weve done that where anybody not being here. Often thats depending on where the others are were not quite sure yet. How many votes do we need. 4 votes to modify the permit
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.