Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 92216 20160926 : v

SFGTV Planning Commission 92216 September 26, 2016

On item 15 an euclid avenue is building directly across u clildz a 3 story uphill and hidden the subject building are 3 story multi units families the department is aware of opposition to the project from two adjacent neighbors the dr requester the lowell heights. Overhead please. Thank you commissioner president fong and commissioners im kathy and the next door neighborhoods john joins in the dr request a 12 foot solid wall is dont large and requires a variance. Height every 10 feet in the required rear yard as shown in the variance application now those photos show the existing grade and stairway to the zika that well be put it in the stairway and expansion and con sells by hedge that spills into the public sidewalk heres a picture of the column that was add will require a variance not granted this photo showed theyve built on the rear yard heres variance speak into microphone. Some of the neighbors have some of their mid block open space. Shell not put trees in the public sidewalk the patio is large and a zika expansion about jet but as the fence bulletin explains minor openings between slats doesnt make it a open design. The new third story would not be in conformity with the common roof lines of the building, the Laurel Heights track was built uniform patterns and design says be compatible and suggest a sloping roof to make a vertical addition more compatible. They refer to a sloping roof to make it fit in. The penthouse is a thousand feet, it is very large thmpt master bedroom is 25 feet long and storage wardrobe 25 feet long and it would save the neighborhoods property. Here is the neighborsiar and that would be shaded. You could reduce the size by about 6 feet on the north side to mitigate the impact or slope it as the guidelines say. And then the new wooden siding, would create the appearance of a giant wall around the property to the front and it is not consistent with the stucco facade of all the buildings the Design Guidelines require that and it shouldnt be filled in. Thank you, your time is up. You will have a two minute rebuttal. Speakers in report of the dr requester . My name is vivlia silvia johnson. [inaudible] building and joaning area, which is really crowded and the zoning area on this project. I do you know, want to give a litm example because i have dawn drawn out some patterns of construction and rebuilding and they got stolen from me because i had went to Law Enforcement and i got application tothe minutes i get to see [inaudible] whats going on with that . This is where [inaudible] and administration with the buildings processes and more economic [inaudible] i want to gets more stronger and make more plans to where this dont happen to me no more. This is really [inaudible] so i can see what im talking about. It has been this, that and the other, which was going on in my [inaudible] same time just because [inaudible] im not being disturbed from it. They are being disturbed and dont know it. [inaudible] that need to be wrapped up squand put in proper perspective of housing to where we can see more of our [inaudible] thank you. Any other speakers in support of the dr requester . Okay, project sponsor then. Im dagny mademan and part own orphthe property with my wife who will speak in support as well. Thank you i know you had a really long day. So, i just want to say im not sure where cathy gets a thousand feet because we are adding 700 feet and we really have tried to be thoughtful about the neighborhood. We love living there, we got 3 kids , we have 4 grandparents who would like to come and visit and would like more room for everybody. Just keeping it short and simple, we think it is a tasteful and attractive vertical addition that supports the needs of the family. We studied the zonejug planning guidelines and design is within the scope. We worked very hard with the neighbors on multiple occasions to try to handle any issues that they have, but found they just tried to stop us every step of the way and think planning discretionarythe planning people can speak to that. We went to the department several times trying to speak to issues that the or just checking if we can design it this way or that way and took extra 6 micts months and never got anywhere. We got a big packet that there was nothing about the projict that they liked. So, we trust you guys and the Design Review team and the policies in place x so we wont get held hostage by our neighbors anymore for this relatively discreet addition and think it is beautify the neighborhood and in euclid we get more space back along that street and it is prominent and like to be really beautiful. The only thing not thin packet that i should mention is we have 9 local supporters all in our zip code who have signed letters that look xastly like this one in support of our project, which includes new neighborhood, one of the 3 housing with the same roof line, 106 collins which is the second or third house you saw there. They are in support of our project and we are very happy to have them there and in support. Thats all i need to say. Thank you very much. Good evening, commissioners. My name is molly wood, dagnys wife and i am the other owner of 245 euclid. Primarily i just speak as a mom of Young Children and we are very commit today our neighborhood, we are getting involved with thewe like to renovate the playground across the street. Our Children Play there every day. Our twins go to preschool. A older son is in a a school we also walk to every day. We really care about staying in this neighborhood and improving the house and the corner that hedge that you may have seen is pretty ugly and we would love to have a exkoos to expand the sidewalk and get rid of the hedge where it cannot alwaysit can be dangerous. There are people camping out under there in past so we would like to make a better place for our family and really appreciate you approving our project. Thank you. Hi. I like to urge you to approve this projeblth. I live in the neighborhood as well. I spoke earlier. I drive by this building every single day on my way to pick up carpool kids. It is a very prominent corner. The design is beautiful, it will add to the neighborhood. It will make it better for everybody and will help another family stay in San Francisco with the space they need so urge you to approve. Thank you. Great, any other speakers in support the project sponsor . Seeing none, dr requester overhead, please. Thank you. Hi. My name is [inaudible] from [inaudible] architect for this project. You are part of the project sponsors team then . Yes so you can speak during the two minute rebuttal at the end. You need to wait to the two minute rebuttal. So, thank you. No other speakers in support. Project sponsor you get a two minute rebuttal. Thank you. The design team met in june and didnt knote anything about it until we got the memo last week and no buddy talked to us. We asked her to consider a softer design than a solid wall such as a short hedge with a fence and hedge which is what they have across the street and she said no. They are not will toog do anything. The corner knauch, the design team said it should be open and they just put two windows. The guideline say corner buildings are supposed to be notched. Just putting two winnows doesnt mitigate that. On the fence the design team said it should be open design and they just turned the slat and can see st. Is still soled. The main problem is the 12 foot wall. This deck if youyou should deny the wall. None of these variances are granted. But if give them a foot they will have 4 feet the the Property Line and can put a hedge on their own property that will not require these street trees, otherwise they have to put trees thin street to mask this ugy 12 foot wall. Quite a few neighbors have told me they are against the wall and think 12 feet is ridiculous. Nobody has a 12 foot wall thin neighborhood and it is a very prominent corner and will look really bad so this is the wirs aspect of this design. Thank you. Project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. Overhead, please. My name is ti[inaudible] from [inaudible] architecture. I like to focus on the fence in the streetscape along euclid avenue since that seems to be the sticky point. [inaudible] i will show how difficult it has been despite the outreach and work wg the department and all the efforts we have put in. This photo is the start the euclid avenue streetscape from the eastern corn er of the same block. You see that entire corner is blocked off with a tall hedge. Going down, the same pattern of retaining wall and a tall fence. There is no streetscape. Arriving at the hedge that is existing in the current condition. Now, only about 4 feet of that is within public right of way. We are giving that back to be public right of way where we will plant street trees. We are required to plant street trees. We are not taking anything away. The bulk in mass of what we are doing will be far less than what is current late there. It is beautifying the neighborhood and corner. It is a tough [inaudible] thank you. You have 30 seconds. It is tough to understand without visiting but if you see therounders it is a improvement to the corner and how the corner is perceived to the traffic and pedestrians alike. Thank you. Thank you. Public portion the hearing is closed. Commissioner moore. Mr. Lindsey, would you help us go to the dr requesters up front statements about variance and encroachment permit, 12 foot fence, 10 foot fence that we are anchored and understanding how these particular points fit in that would i think set us on a good footing. Yes of course. David lendsy, department staff. I should have mentioned in my presentation the project does require a variance which was applied forthe Zoning Administrator heard that variance in april and he hasnt issued a decision he wanted to wait to the commission weighed in on the e dr re quest but indicated he will grant the rear yard variance should the commission approve the project. This is to clarify that the building really doesnt have a clear rear yard but because it is a [inaudible] the front the building is the front yard and side yard becomes the rear yard. That is sometimes the nature of corner buildings. The rear yard we are taking as opposite columns so it is the portion on the right hand side. It is thebecause they relocated the retaining wall, that is within the required rear yard and the retaining wall is higher than the 3 feet allowed as of right so thats what triggered the rear yard variance. Just to continue on about the 12 foot wall, that is actually the retaining wall plus the fence on top. Under the planning code we measure the height of the fence from the top of the retaining wall which is the established grade. It isnt [inaudible] it is top of the lot . Correct. And then thei would mention that the hedge that currently is partially in the public right of way is being removed and they are going to be planting street trees which are required under the planning code along the sidewalk. Could you briefly help us with open versus opaque fence . I do not quite see that totally open spence in support of any rear yard . The code requires fences to be a certain degree open if they are in the front set back. If they are taller than 3 feet they need to be 75 percent open. This particular fence is not in a required setback for design purposes if thdesign team wanted the fence to have a some openness to it. I dont think we specified a certain amount, but did want it to read as not fully solid. [inaudible] reviewed by the Residential Design Team and has been deemed to meet those recommendations . Yes, that is direct. I find the design itself sensitive. I am actually very much in support of seeing the public sidewalk take its full width and the block more unified. And dont have any problem with the retaining wall and the fence. That is not to say the wall itself at some point could just be the nature of where it become green and overgrown with some vine or whatever, so im in support the project and i would like to make a move to approve and not take the [inaudible] thank you commissioners. On that motion to not take the [inaudible] aproouv the project proposed. Hillis, that motion passes unanimously 70. Commissioner, that places on item 16. 4320, 24th street. Discretionary review. Good evening. Planning commission. [inaudible] subject property is located at 4320 24th street. The proposal is construct a new vertical addition to existing two story Single Family resident thmpt building overall height will increase from 19 to 30 feet. The new top floor is set back 15 feet from the front building. The subject property is 26 feet widethe lot is 26 feet wide and 114 deep. I would like to make a correction from the report, the existing resident is 2399 square feet, not 1500 and located in rh 2 district in no go noe value. Planning department received shadow impacts and [inaudible] windows along the east facade and fasing. Two dr were filed however one was withdrawn which had been filed by an adjacent neighborhood because agreed upon design changed implemented by the owner. Project sponsor did a shadow study and methodology reviewed by the department and concluded additional shadowing caused by the new floor is negligent. File ing the dr filing requested design modifications. The residential design supported the design including the project doesnt create anything exceptional or extraordinary and Planning Commission should not take discretioncretionary review. Dr requester. S f gov tv will go to the overhead. Okay. Good evening. Thank you commissioners for staying so late. My name is larry tang. I lived in noe valley for every 18 years. The father of active young girls who are active in the park on a daily basis. We have a little puppy right now. I have been active thin Community Many years. I served thin Library Commission 8 years. Served on many nonprofit educational boards including [inaudible] serviced 1800 since last summer and volunteer as a wrestling coach at [inaudible] for over 22 years. I urge the commission today to post pone approval of 4320 24th street to get Community Information on the impact of the project and circumstances the project poses to newo noe courts. Letters written by neighbors and supporters oof the application regarding the impact the park, the conformance of the height of the building with the neighbors buildings and whether prop k should apply to this project, we also believe that the ceqa eximption claimed isnt applicable as we believe the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to the unusual circumstances that the shading of the park will have and park useage. Especially the shading will impact the most used part of the park, the Tennis Courts and [inaudible] and new picnic tables. One thing to also note, the Planning Department and neither proponent have done any outreach to the community on the impact of this project. The plan fact is there is no notice put thin park or posting this would go on, nobody knows this will go on and since april the park is closed because of the major renovation and no one knows what will happen when the renovation is completed on the impact of the project on the park. So, i want to give background what noe courts are. From the Park Department website, i just print td this out, this is a small sanctuary. Tennis and [inaudible] on high demand. When you look at the project and shading it will shade more of the tennis court. This is athe plan renovation the park is doing right now with rec and park. The project is on the slide right herethis is tennis court remain. They are clear enough to add new picnic tables and here bringer terrace for lawn seating. All this area will be shaded by the expansion. You get a better picture of this. A neighbor took the picture in the string of the project. You can see up on top is 4320 24th. They will add a floor and you can see this is playground and the middle is a lawn seating and picnic tables. When they at a floor you will have a new wall that will shade these areas. Currently the park is under renovation. This is a picture of the area they are building with picnic tables which is most closer to 4320 24th street. You will have more shading of this area. When i say a gigantic wall will be built, this is the tennis court. Building itself from the front of the building street level is less than 40 feet but if you measure from the tennis court the wall exceeds 40 feet which prop k will apply. I want to show this picture because it will block views when it goes up from the park of the hills. This is one picture but if you go around the park it will block. Im out of time and will make the rest of the argument with my rebuttal. If you permit this to go forwardim out of time. Thank you. Thank you. Speakers in support of the dr requester . Okay. So project sponsor. Good evening commissioners ross levery the architect for the project. I think planning staff gave the facts clearly. I want to clear up about square footage. There was a question commissioner moore had about the square footage. There are 509 square feet of unconditioned space. There is 1096 proposed square feet of unconditioned space. That is to park another car and portion of that 150 square feet is on the 15 foot setback, the roof deck that happens when we set back from the front of the property. We did do extensive work with the planning staff and rdt to make a project they found to be acceptable and did outreach with neighbors and were able to come to a compromise with our immediate neighbors who draupd their dr. Planning code does not require shadow studies on Residential Projects less than 40 feet adjacent to the park but we produced a shady study and it found the additional shadowing amonths to 0. 1 percent. That happens thin late afternoons and all most exclusively on the Tennis Courts, not on the grass surface the park in any way. With that in mind you can also take a different vision of that and say that additional story that might provide wind break that will work in service of tennis, but that is subjective. Another subjective notion is the discussion of the large or presumed large wall. We have been advised by planning staff and have designed an art piece on the wall designing the wall into parterns providing colors and providing Property Line windows to break up and animate the surface. Finally, just to address other issues discussed in the room earlier in regards to gentrification. This is rh 2 zone, this is a Single Family home. I have discussed the potential to create a second unit on a lower level with the p

© 2025 Vimarsana