tv [untitled] November 19, 2012 6:00am-6:30am PST
your building? i i would love to answer that but first i would like to clarify mr. barallies comments zoo no, i do not want that okay based on my review of plans this istant monument to a demolition because by digging down on both sides of property lines to installing install a new ground floor the walls proposessed to remain cannot hang in space until a new foundation and cripple wall is built underneath them. >> mr. williams in all previous weeks we were told that even if the wall is hanging in there and in this case, they totally hung in there during frequent fraction and there is no future wall it was still not a demolition correct? that is what we have been told and the assumption is we never get behind the form lay
but the assumption is that, that assumption that i put in my letter section 317 says repair and maintenance and my understanding is that when that was put in by the board of directors five-seven year ago when 317 was passed that was when you were in the middle of remodel and found some dry rock you could repair and maintain it and it did not mean planning from the start to completely remove the building and build it out of new material and build it in the same lace and not all it a demolition, every single stick has to be removed every single stick. >> okay i would like to put myself in the position of of the planning commissioner that the information by which we are instructed a few weeks ago and given today it doesn't quite add up and i'm frustrated that the interpretation has so much
ambiguity between last and now although the majority of people in this room don't know what we did a few weeks ago that we are in a very serious situation having today a situation which a registered architect would call a know litigation however your interpretation says it's not so what are we going to do? i'm leaving that with a question mark because i'm very frustrated and i feel inexaibl compatible of really making judges about this probability in the ambiguity of how this definition of demolition is being used and this in particular reference to registered architect saying it is, builders who cannot submit warnings based on some kind of signature by engineer saying it's not and so i'm just kind off opposed to this question. >> if i may add these plans
are from a licensed architect and i don't know if you would like that hear from the project sponsors architect since it's their plans how they would like to proceed with this thank you commissioners my name is andy roger and is i'm a licensed architect and i have been practicing in san francisco for about 14 years. in fact, we are very much consistent with abiding by the city's stated demolition callations and i would like to point out that mr. mr. smith, planter questioned me several times about our calculations and so i went back to him several time and made sure that we were right on. the crux of the matter has to do with what constitutes of the removal of a wall and what i understand and what i have been led to understand by the planning department is that if
the wood framing is he remaining in tact. then that wall is not demolish and had when you have a building that is the aim of this one you are not going to be able to meet the current seismic code with those foundations because you cannot put anchor bolts into the foundation that wand the bolt that we are retired to have now and i would like to persistent out the drawings that mr. williams was showing included interior partition and is that is clearly not part of the san francisco planning department criteria for demolition it has do with interior walls and the vertical surfaces. so ... the other thing that were the to point out is that there is also not really a way to meet both the energy code, the lateral code and the
fire code for walls without removing the at least the interior claddings and sometimes the ex-tierior cladding. so i hope that helps a bid. >> air force couple of questions and first the stated date of this home being built was 1879 and now admittedly looking at the outside somebody did some things because everything was wood frame and mow it looks stucco and so would i would assume there were alterations over the years first of all, i'm mr. washington. >> sorry, this house is had under gone construction but had a major alteration sometime in the 30's probably before any of us were born into a mediterranean revival. and so, it's whatever originally
historic was in the house and so it's clear of the review preservation that it was granted. >> well that was my first question because this was with a lot on a street with a home a lot of home that were in the victorian era and the other situation that the architect just spoke about and showing up the walls and one would presume that there are a lot of homes on the street that are of that age and they must take seismic matters to be able to strengthen their soms and there are probably some that they may not have demolished the walls to to be able do had a and that is one concern that i have and the other concern that i have aside from the impacts expressed by the neighbors and -- if you want to answer that, i guess that would be fine did you. to answer about what they did to
strengthen existing homes? was that what you were going to answer. >> yes, that has to do with the edge of the foundation but the only way with a home like this to milk it work is to replace the concrete foundation and one has to shore up the structure above that and replace the wood framing but the wood framing is usually all strong enough to with stand the verdictcal lobes and with this house in particular and many that i have work on there is no way to save the existing foundation and so, if what he is saying is correct, that it's tantamount to a demolition if you are removing the existing foundation there is very little that could be done on all of these homes i would agree with that there are a lot of homes that i have seen from franklin street to other parts of the addition and they call them out of there
so the house can be raised in the foundation and then the house can be dropped back down and i guess the whole point is that even though it has been altered some of the new structure has very little reresemble ambulance to anything else on the street and i would like to see something that is that was more sympathetic and connect actual to something on the street understood, it is more contemporary but we were trying to pick up on the massing and the scale and the size of widow and door elements that existed on the street. >> yeah, some of that is there and yeah, that is one thing that bothers me about it and as far as the impacts there has been a lot of talk about the light well and is it has been represented that it's not possible to match the light wells exactly. there will be a lot of compromises that would have to be made do you agree about that, that would make it difficult to put together what you are trying to accomplish? yeah, and i just want to point out in in the last
iteration especially on the easy side, we came in on broth ends with both the light well to the north and to the south. they were extended to specifically address those neighbors concerns. such that we dropped the washer and drier at the south end and on the south end we shortened the bathroom by wo feet and so it's not possible to make the stairwell work and have the bathroom up there which, is important to total plan. >> okay that thank you i'll see what the other commissions have to say on this staff is -- a apparently urging us to not take take k. d r and approve the project and
the other issue that was brought up is the 18 feet further back into the rear yard but there is no problem with the rear yard open space or mid block open space as far as the addition there and there is a sloping lot and so, it's going to seasonally essentially be dug in and so the top floor is essentially set back 5 feet from the -- shallow residence. and yeah, and so i that you understand that is not really a factor because it's not really useable base, you are basically going up against the hill and all right i think we have a couple of other commissioners now. >> commissioner ellis. >> two simple question for the architect on the probability
sponsor side, some of the issues that were brought up and these are fairly -- at least the first one is minor and on the top floor you know matching the top well there seems to be a foot or so -- but that was one of the requests coming back on the top floor to match the light well -- right i think that would have been 16-inches. >> that would have been thick it started out as a sing and then it was reduce today a single sync sync -that is a double sync. that is correct [spelling?] we could. >> and then i'm sorry -- that was my fault. it is a double sync and yes, i think we could
reduce it to one sing there if we needed. >> and the other side of the home on the first floor, could you go back and match your light well all the way back to where your light well start begins sorry on the first floor? on the first floor on the living room and i guess on the second floor, the living area either a got a light well in that area and it's set back in the dining room but that light well is coming back to match the light well. >> i'm sorry you want this side of the plan? that would be the west side? let me see -- yeah. yeah and the light well stylly back
further than -- property commissioners what you are looking at in the plan is the light well is just a problem path. the plan is actually a light well that is created and that exists now to allow more light into this region -- side and it's not interview with a light well for 475 jersey can you pull up a one four?. >> yeah, light rail it's -- this actually is an existing that goes all the way down, we cut that out to create more light on the first wall for the sign that belongs to --
[inaudible] . >> right and what was ms., may be requesting of that, that, that light well be continued to the street yes and to the ground. >> no, it does not -- no, that is what she was requesting. >> she want to request that we have this go all the way down the problem is that, i know have demolition. >> is that true? yeah. that would be the motion of existing wall that is not shown as a demolition currently. >> because in order to do that i might have to go all the way up or down to two story. >> again, i don't think these are huge. you know, but they could be. you know, making
compromises to the neighbor and but trying to make some promses for the neighbor. >> missioner? question for i guess project sponsor there were picture that happens shown with the story poles and is windows of one of the d r requester's showing not a lot of blockageack there but what kind of separation do we have there no on one side with these they have permanently kaived out 4 feet and we are at adding 3 feet in the back and so it's a total of 7-foot separation and in the front it's more like 10 feet because on the front portion of it until about almost 15 feet -- no, deeper than that, we actually widened that from
three to two so 6 feet and so together with this widow now, actually has a ten-foot set back and they did that deliberately to make sure it doesn't apply to go into those windows. >> thank you because i can't expect too much more and is compliant to go up that other floor and they will look all the that but they also will get a lot of light coming in with the ten-foot separation yeah, that is something that we will have a very deep almost like 19 feet all the way down. >> and certain, there is no motion on anywhere we can do any little tweaking to make anymore space for the light wells i would appreciate it. >> i have personally look at this other plan inch by inch to squeeze out every single bit of space that i could to try to
match the adjacent deck on one side on the upper on the back and the front as close as i can and yes, commissioner is correct, you could try to push some of it back, to get the back deck set back a bit more deeper but, there is a lot of -- because of this -- i couldn't do both. because it means taking three and-a-half feet out and staircase going down [inaudible] well probably given what has been presented, i would like to i guess i'll make a motion to not take the d r and i certainly would add to that in that it's
not part of the conditions #1 architect continue to work with staff on design and i'm not saying to redesign it but i'm saying wherever widow treatments or anything can be done it make it more acceptable to the connection of the neighbor that would be appreciated and number two, finance to work with d r requesters and neighbors wherever possible to create any additional mitigations to the impacts that they have because, we have had a history of project being presented that were different and now, this project is considerably larger than was originally proposed even though it was another project and another developer and so that is basically my motion second. >> motion commissioners do do you agree with the commissioner ant knee knee
aye. >> commissioner hillist guy aye. >> and economister woo. aye and so the motion passes unanimously. six to zero and -- commissioners that was the last item on your regular calendar, before you now is public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment this even evening? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.
>> good afternoon and welcome to the mayor's disability council, room 400,san francisco city hall. our meeting is fully accessible to persons using wheelchairs. assisting listening devices are available. our meeting is open captioned and sign interpreting is available. braille is available. ask staff for any assistance. the respect everyone's ability to focus on the presentation, please either turn off all mobile phones and pdas, or
change these devices to vibrate mode. your cooperation is appreciated. we welcome the public's participation during public comment. you may complete a speakers card available in the front of the room. the mayor's disability council meeting are generally the third friday of each month. our next regular meeting will not be until january 18, 2013, from 1 o'clock to four o'clock here, san francisco city hall, room 400. call the mayor's office on disability for further information or to request accommodations at 415-554-6789. voice. or
415-554-6799, tty. a reminder to all of our guests today to speak slowly into the microphone to assist our captioners and interpreters. we thank you for joining us and ken stein has an announcement regarding the bridge line. thank you. >> we also want to invite people who are at home, they can listen via the bridge line, 415-554-9632. usually the bridge line has the capacity for people to talk to us. today there are technical problems. we don't have the capability. we do welcome people's comments nonetheless. if you like to call monday, 554-6799, tty.
email, - we apologize for our difficulties. >> thank you mr. stein. proceeding with agenda item number one, may we initiated roll call please. >> present today we have councilmembers wong, wilson, burkett, james, parson. >> item 2, reading and approval of agenda. with mr. stein.. >> here i am again.
regular meeting, mayors disability council. one, welcome, introduction roll call. two, approval of the agenda. three, public comment, four, report from the chair. five, report from the director of the mayor's office of disability. six, report of the transportation plan update. seven, community perspective of supportive housing and sros eight, action item. nine, action item, proposed amendment to the mdc by laws. -- elven, multimodal accessibility committee update. eleven, public comment.
that was 12, 13, correspondent, 14 councilmember comments and announcements. 15 adjourn. >> thank you. moving on the public comment agenda item number three. i have one speakers card here. our friends across the day ms. denise jacobson, with the oakland mayor's commission. we welcome you. anyone else who wishes to speak after her? please step forward. >> thank you. i'm very happy to be here today. i am the vice-chair of