tv [untitled] January 27, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PST
read. i i also wrote about green buildings, sustainable buildings, and this person did a lot of work on a green building ordinance, led levels, and he talks about cultural sustainability. i am trying to point out the fact this is a very important and special area, and i am not talking about ceqa levels, secretary of interior standards. i am just trying to bring up the fact this may or may not be an earthquake shack. if it has been there since 1898 spanish-american war, maybe that is what it is because it does not show up on the 2006 map, but it has been there all this time and we need to find out what it is. that is basically my point about this earthquake shock. thank you. >> thank you, are there speakers
in favor of the d.r. request for? -- in favor of the d.r. requestor? commissioner miguel: the other microphone. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 684, fourth avenue, next to the d.r. requestor. i am a fifth generation native san franciscan. i wanted to show you my yard and the d.r. requestor's yard. it is hard to describe how to
important someone's back yard is when you live in a city, in a very urban area, which the permit applicant mentioned it. it is our oasis, and it is my therapy, it is my sanity. it makes the city and even better place to live in, and i hope that you take that into consideration, the fact that the city is trying to be more green. for some people, that is an important part of it. that is going to be a big intrusion on air and especially likeight in our yard because the property sits to the south, southeast. it is a very tall, 30-seat building, right on the property line. there is also a deck right on
the property line, second story deck that will be looking directly into our yard and windows. we did not know a lot about the house. we met once with the architect, but and voice our concerns, and it never heard any more about any changes that might be able to be made in the plan. i also want to say that i mentioned i am a fourth generation native san franciscan. my great-grandmother was born here in 1851. both of my children, i feel fortunate because they both bought houses in the city. i have two grandchildren who are sixth generation natives and it will be growing appear. i think destroying a cottage that has potential historic significance is destroying part of their history. losing my backyard is important to me, but that is personal.
losing the historical, cultural asset is important to a lot more people, and i hope you'll consider that. thank you. president olague: is there any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, purge -- product sponsor? -- project sponsor? >> i was trying to make a point, like i will appreciate that you did not grant the continuance, because the point i was trying to make was the owner's extended family has been living there since 2009, july, when they first bought the property. and if you have reviewed the report, the existing heating system does not work and there is no way to inspect it because
the access panel -- i am not a big guy, but i cannot get through the crawlspace. even someone who was willing to find a way to go through the crawlspace and fix the existing heating system, the existing heating system is right below the occupied floor. speaking out substandard items, you name it, you don't need to be a property engineer. all of the exterior walls, interior walls, they're basically two or three layers of plywood. there is a long list here in the report that we filed, and also reviewed by the planning department that there are more than 30 items, which are considered standard housing,
based on the san francisco housing code. having said that does not mean it is not uninhabitable, but it is not healthy to the occupant or the adjacent neighbors. for example, another item would be the existing heater, outside and behind the existing house, sitting on the deck or concrete with no rebar, unprotected, uncovered. the extended family members living in the house, he is a chinese individual and this is the second window without any seat. you could imagine that this house was built close to 100 years ago and the previous owner, you don't have to be an expert to tell that the single
pane windows are a problem. speaking of the process, we met with the neighbors, it will be a challenge for them in the owner to work with certain a burst if this sort -- is the first meeting we are proposing something and then the comment is i don't see anything change, period. so that is what we got. having said that, but earlier statement that i made, the recommendation i made was the concern from the neighbor, they have concern about the height. i just wanted to remind all the
commissioners that the allowable height for that subject is 40 feet. once again, the owner is not a developer. there are planning to move in there and occupied both the studio unit and ground-floor, and also the upper unit. we did not propose or maximize the allowable area. this is just a three story building, and the materials. it was reviewed by the residential design team, the planning department. it is a little different, but it is forward thinking and it is sustainable materials. it does not have to be certified, but the materials may not be the best material for
certain areas because paint and vapor barriers may calls mold in certain areas of san francisco. the materials we propose here would actually require minimum maintenance over a long time, and there are projects all over town that use similar materials, all high-quality materials. that is all i am going to said. thank you. president olague: thank you. i have a couple speaker cards. >> good evening. i am the owner of the house. i bought the house back in 2009, intending to move in with my family and in-laws. i actually own a t store a
couple blocks away from the property and i originally thought it would be great to work. my father in law is living in the house. compared with all the adjacent buildings, i think it is an eyesore. it is a very deteriorated shack. at the outside has a huge front lawn with lots of, like, just weeds, and the facade of the houses damaged. we intend to move in with my wife, my two kids, my mother in law, my father in law, and also my mom and dad. we would basically be one big family living in a house. it originally when we bought it in 2009, we were pondering keeping it the way it was, but the more we thought about it, it is in excess financially to
remodel the house to make it livable. we came to the conclusion to hopefully demolish it and make a new house again. right now, our whole family is anticipating and hopefully we could have this project approved and move on, since we have had many delays. thank you for your time. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. just like my son said, we need a bigger house to live in. right now, this is only a one- story house, 100 years old. the next-door neighbors, all the houses are bigger. it does not of looked very even
-- it does not look very even. athe are big three story buildings. i don't think there is any reason to reject the project. so thank you so much. president olague: thank you. >> thank you. i don't have much more to add. i said before. thi'm a third-generation realto, have sold houses all over town. it is not uncommon to see a random barn structure in the neighborhoods. i could point out every single neighborhood that has such an anesthetic. for what that is worth. president olague: thank you.
are there any additional -- >> not to reiterate to much of what i said earlier, but san francisco is a place of diversity. that is something we are proud of, and i think freezing that, putting saran wrap over dilapidated shacks is not a good precedent for our future city. thank you. president olague: thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requestor, you have two minutes. >> first of all, i like to address that this earthquake shack is not dilapidated at all.
the landscaping is still there from what it was here, except the tree has been cut down. the informal review for this case and the response is not throw nor -- is not throurough r objective. that is not based on fact in the record, and a more thorough review is required. the residential design guidelines mention the home should be blended in with the neighborhood. i passed out additional pictures of the entire third ave. they're all mediterranean, stucco, single-family homes. maybe somebody is thinking about a 5000 square foot lot.
ithe stud-less portion of the shaq is what made it an earthquake shack. the heater access, pg&e has gone in there and lit the pilot, so i do not know why people keep saying the heater is not accessible. the greenest way is to keep the building as it is out -- as-is. the energy to keep a the way it is it is less than would be required to rebuild the building. thank you. president olague: thank you. product sponsor, two minutes. >> it was submitted to the planning department more than three months. regarding the tree, in the
report its state it it was farmers insurance, and it was a condition of the house. that is part of the package that was submitted. if you guys would love to come down and check out the shack, we are more than happy to do that, not to mention there is mold, plumbing, electrical, you name it, all kinds of issues. so i hope that all the commissioners will review carefully, all the worke that te team did and the planning department did. bank. president olague: thank you. public hearing is closed. commissioner moore?
commissioner moore: i want to make it two, its credit -- i want to make two comments. the sits out in the back of a lot and is labeled a shack. most of us without having the presentation of the detail are not quite able to distinguish the shack from the shack. having said that, if indeed there is evidence that this shack is indeed part of their resources that should be looked at, we have had other situations where we have created a condition where the shack would be moved since this building does not have foundations. this is probably not an impossible thing to do. i am not an expert, but i am suggesting for sensitivity to this subject, this may be more than meets the eye. i did not believe that in the
issue of transforming neighborhood or in the challenge posed to us residential infill which we discussed every week with more or less pain in our minds that this should not be considered a lot where the presentation of the family currently lives in 929 square feet and that seems to many people, they did and a situation like that. with the surrounding developments being larger, i have looked at photos substantiating that, the building itself for me is completely comfortable. it is a contemporary building, not overtly aggressive in its expression, and in principle i am not opposed to approving it if it meets our discussions about garage widths, curb cuts,
residential. since they are not asking for a variance, i am ready to make a motion that we approve this. i appreciate staff's analysis, which i think is the road and to the point -- which i think was thorough and to the point. commissioner miguel: second. president olague: that would be for the demolition and the new construction? commissioner moore: before we basically agreed on the motion, the sensitivity regarding the demolition and packaging but it and taking it someplace else. president olague: thank you. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i am satisfied with the material i have received regarding the condition of the building. i have not been side. i have looked at it from the
exterior. i have no problem with it as far as the demolition, because i see nothing that has come to me, and this is going on certainly since october. i would have thought that i would have seen some factual material by this point. as far as the present building that is proposed, no, it does not look like any of the other buildings on the block, but what is along with that? it is a building of its time. those buildings are buildings of their time, and a city progresses in this manner. i agree with commissioner moore, it is not as overt as many we have seen. the materials, have been grown up and lived in the richmond district, i understand this
area. using materials that will withstand the sea air as it comes in and the fall, and i see nothing wrong with the material used, i see nothing wrong with the design, and i fully support the project. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i am kind of in favor of what commissioner moore was alluding to, one of the conditions being to move it to another site. is that part of the motion? commissioner moore: this is kind of tripping me. i was hearing commissioner miguel saying the rational thing. this has been around since october, why haven't we heard about this before. i am trying to be sensitive to the issues. they made a convincing presentation. commissioner borden: i mean, i
would just add, where would you put -- the problem is, where would you put the shack? i mean, it is a wonderful idea to move it, but it is not like it is a cultural resource everybody was visiting. commissioner moore: why don't we ask commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i am not saying anything more. commissioner antonini: i will continue. in reading the historical report, which was interesting, a lot of these shacks were moved to other places in the past. i think there may not be that many of them left, and it would be up to the project sponsor to find the site. i am not sure that you want to put that into the motion. commissioner moore: i don't want to complicate the project. if it has not appeared before,
why now? commissioner antonini: i have more to say on this. at the historical aspects are very interesting, and the fact there was an undertaker who lived there who was the undertaker to the rich and famous, that is kind of amazing that he attended to herem johnson -- hiram johnson and president harding, but that in an of itself is not enough. i don't know what the standard is to be up to preserve. in terms of the size of the structure, which was brought up by some of the d.r. requestors, i think it seems to be appropriate. i have always been in favor of people being able to accommodate their needs and make a structure that is appropriate. it is certainly appropriate to the size of the buildings in the area. i disagree with the design. i think the windows, really, do not fit at all with the windows
and the rest of the neighborhood, and i would really like to see that. you could use new or materials, they're not very contextual. i know they're very high quality, but they can be done in different ways, for sure, and that is the part that i think does not really fit in. you look at this neighborhood, it is almost entirely wood frame and stucco, and i would like to see a design that fits a little better what the neighborhood. commissioner sugaya: with respect to the rich historic resource aspect of it, the staff report points out the conclusion was that the house was historically significant. the analysis of significance has two parts, as probably everybody knows. it doesn't meet the criteria
for his -- but does it meet criteria for historic significance? this meets one, which is enough. the second is whether it retains integrity. i think that is where the analysis tries to say that because of certain dimensional aspects and other things that what may have been an earthquake shack, apparently, in their view now, agreed to by the staff, has lost enough integrity it is not an historic resource. in addition to that, they have submitted additional information, as i take it, and i asked staff to look that. to see whether or not there was some validity to what was presented after the report. i don't know, staff, to you have a comment on the material submitted? it was up voluminous pages submitted, lots of information,
additional photographs, photographs of other earthquake- related buildings that were two stories higher in dimensional quality. >> i read through the front part of the report that detailed her argument and shared it with some of my colleagues on the preservation staff. we still did not feel that she supplied evidence that the building is eligible for the california out register. for this building to be important under criteria in two for persons, the person has to be significant to our past and the individual whose activities were demonstrably import. the criteria is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate rather than commemorate a person's
achievements. the embalmer lived at this property, but when he and balm harding, he did not live there, and it does not signify his role as an undertaker at all. maybe if you landmarked is more to worry, that might be important, but a shacky did not live-in -- maybe if the land marked the mortuary, that might be important, but a shack that he did not live in is not important. there is no evidence or proof it was a barracks in the spanish- american war. at the lot was at the vacant until 1986, when the building showed up. it is the evidence that we have. commissioner sugaya: thank you. commissioner borden: i would say that if we wanted to honor that, the best way we would do that is
if the project sponsor would consider putting a plaque on their door, doorstep, to commemorate -- if they wanted to, not saying we make that part of the motion. right now, nobody looks at it, knows it is significant. they think of it is a small cottage house. the cultural significance of something is something people share an know exists. i think if you wanted to commemorate it, it makes sense to commemorated in a way, a plaque with a picture, but i don't know that moving the property would make any difference in commemorating fat. i think today people don't go by and say let's visit the earthquake shack. they don't know that. the culture of what that is about, people think it is a regular lot with a small house on it. it could be honored more by explaining it in some sort of way that actually moving it. particularly since in this town there are not places to really
move things onto. i would support commissioner moore's original motion. >> you have a motion and second, to not take d.r. and approve the demolition and construction. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, five-one. commissioners, we are now on item 11, case number 20 10.0736c, 1617 pulte street, request for conditional use authorization. >> for today's authorization request, it is doing business as najalee thai