Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 15, 2014 9:00am-9:31am PST

9:00 am
>> we have a motion if commissioner fung to adapt the finding no revision. >> on that motion to adapt the draft finding commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. >> and commissioner wilson thank you. >> the vote is 4 to zero the finding are adapted and the 10 day rehearing request period is now closed. >> we'll return to item 7 which has been called appeal i believe is there anyone on behalf of the appellant? okay. seeing none then we'll hear from the permit holder
9:01 am
>> good evening again commissioners greg on behalf of the permit holder in defines to the commissioners time and commissioner honda's schedule i'll be brief and glad to answer questions should the commission have any this is a structural mraerntd that is adjacent to the appellants property line he has a relationship wall and concerned that the planter and the trees in it would cause lateral loading on the wall the permits holders family purchased this property in 2007 and those planters were constructed probably a decade to two decades prior to the purchase by the kc family the bit of a misnomer it says retrofit planters the plan
9:02 am
to remove the planters and sing it to bedrock and support a newcele concrete planter with a bottom on top of the peers to make sure no loading is exerted on the retaining wall both dbi and the permit holder civil engineering consultants inspected the wall and found no major cracks or recent damage to the walls as port of the permit process research was done and studies from hong kong that showdown actually, the tree roots stable the soil and litigate lateral loads on gravity walls was sited by the plan checker felt it should have
9:03 am
a bottom and they're designed so they'll contain roots spreading that would therl impact the wall we trust the city's professional staff and extended a grateful of engineering times for this 4 by 14 foot concrete planter we ask you to uphold the city's issuance and we're here to answer questions should the commission have any. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners in the building permit under appeal is nonsense to notice of violation retrofit of existing under box removing the box and replacing
9:04 am
it with a concrete with reinforced peers it was reviewed by dph the building inspection the planning department our structural plan structures two engineers looked at it and i know that was an old for a while but they got it issued the permit was issued it is in response to notice of violation in 2012 but i think the gentleman filed a complaint over and over someone on his behalf and substantially we wrote it up for a violation and resolved the notice of violation we've spent a lot of staff time open this address dealing with this issue and the deck issue as well that the gentleman brought up i'll be
9:05 am
confident our engineers spot checked that correctly and it should be done in my opinion that's what the gentleman disastrous with me if we were here but there is a properly issued permit i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> ami looking at the dates from 2009 until now wow. >> it should be resolved this has gone on too long for a planter box people hire consultants geotechnical engineers on both sides cost a lot more from the talking to do the work as you can see it is $18,000 for the cost of the planter box i ska can sure you a lot more money has been spent on consulate fees it is sad.
9:06 am
>> mr. duffy. >> whether i was at planning we had 3 meetings with the color of the roses job security. >> thank you mr. t. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners corey t that did planning department briefing that permit was routed to the department we determined it didn't require review by the planning department it was rolled to dbi where it underwent further review and didn't require our review we don't reject the permit today i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> any public comment on this item. >> do any of the representatives including the gentleman have any rebuttal okay
9:07 am
commissioners the matter t is submitted. >> i'll be bold to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. >> second. >> okay mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion month commissioner president lazarus to uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you. >> the vote is had to zero the permit it up legally on that basis. >> move our or on to item 8 versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval the property on 40526th street to robert edmond to erect a building with 17 hundred and 50
9:08 am
secret of ground floor area we'll start with the appellants. >> good evening, members of the board i live on 27th street and thank you so much thank you for the opportunity to voice any concerns and the concerns of fellow residents all of whom were on or after march 13 of 2013 by the live in four units that are negatively impacted by the site plan on 27th street we request you require positive design a changes to the plan so we can obtain our only source of sunlight important before issuing the site permit there's a light well, that serves 4 units in the building the only
9:09 am
source of quality year around direct sunlight and heat from the sun the only source from the east yet even though current design is 3 stories high it is built to the property line and thereby fully obtains the light well oh, no, matching light well or resource for sunlight it takes up to 95 percent of any sunlight and impacts the story below that me i've heard from the board you preview to see the matching light wells on all sides of a structure i heap this particular project had will be a consistent goal additionally the height of the planned structure actually extends beyond the
9:10 am
rooftop we're open a grade and it rises it enclosures our light well and takes the source of sun before us of the date we moved in our concerns have to be tooukt we moved in after the public outreach happened and after the march date the people filed for their construction permit basically any permits we tried to file other than the 311 notice stated significant modifications were made and the planning folks were happy with the neighboring on 27th street, however, none of us most impacted had a chance for our serious considerations to be
9:11 am
look at all of the kwoigsz were to the north and east we're seriously threatened to be boggled in and take the heat in the sun and reduce our light source to darker all year long this will be a permanent unliveable situation for all you future tenants in the building unless you the board look at this please know that following the permit approval after the dr hearing any fellow tenants and i tried several times to dialog with the permit holder and share the modifications try to discuss our serious concerns but none of our concerns were heard they
9:12 am
explicit take us seriously and never agreed to meet with us in person or by phenomenon after 10 separate attempts we hope to avoid escalating this but not taken seriously we need our concerns addressed this is the last opportunity for the permit structure gospel if that take away all our daylight not only us but future residents of the building it's a design challenge the architects should solve if a positive situation not only the residence of that new structure but an existing building as well i'm not an architect none of any existing tenants in the building are but the architect in 4, 5, 6 are it should be a design
9:13 am
challenge they show be able to meeting meet i'll ask you did board to appeal to you to make sure that you help us address our last concerns for our needs to be addressed before this site permit is issued. >> i have a question so all 4 tenants have recently moved into the building. >> yes. >> and management company or an owner. >> owners. >> she knew buffs a developed not aware there interest was 3 stories she'll speak to that during public comment. >> your dates in our brief made me a little bit confused if you and your fellow tenants arrived after march 2013 but yet you participated in the dr process.
9:14 am
>> the dr process in may of this year there was what was the name of that there's the letter that went out in december of last year basically was the last opportunity to see what were the plans going in to 4, 5 and 6 that was any first opportunity when i received those i reached out the planning commission i said hey, i just moved in i want to make sure i have a chance to voice new concerns the planning commission said there is a hearing in may you're welcome to attend and voice your opinion will let me know in you want to take pictures if our living room i invited him to get. >> sense of what i'm dealing
9:15 am
with my main concern was the can we have more time we can have a course of action with the people next door. >> so your issue you didn't participate in the 311 notice. >> i wasn't allowed to participate in the neighborhood you outreach which were the only outreach. >> any future questions. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear. >> next speaker. >> from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners david silicon valley i'm working with the permit holders robert and vivian lee not here the owners and the architects of the project that is no a speck development it is where they and they're children live they've minimum minsz missed the height to the code and received the full support of the
9:16 am
recommendation the planning department and received unanimous approval from the planning commission on a 6 to zero vote commissioner wu was absent i noticed katherine moore clearly expressed her opinions you have her quotes in the brief the project will be 10 feet lower than the height and set back of 15 and a half feet and contain two additional set back of 8 and 15 feet on the second and third levels from the rear facade the permit holders sent in letters from the adjacent neighbors and ms. murdock is a tenant of the adjacent building that has windows facing at about exterior courtyard she express those concerns indeed the
9:17 am
discretionary review applicant not just happened to attend they visited the apartment building twice and the courtyard away was able to stand on its own as a source of light for purposes of comparison 3 hundred square feet is the size of the san francisco in your buildings the appellant has not raised issues of appeal she explored all those are the planning commission with the discretionary review hearing was held she participated in the planning process including the filing with the dr she presented to the planning commission i'm going to turn it over to robert evans and vivian lee. >> i'm vivian lee the project
9:18 am
manager my husband and my sons have been living here with the intention of accommodating the need of our growing family we've been completely transparency regarding our plan and have worked closely with the neighbors during before and after 311 the appellant along with the landowner were unsuccessful in the permit eased since then the appellant has demand xhoigz on our part with the appeal we're confident our permit is of full compliance and they acted in giving us unanimous approval we're not trying to act in any way that's ingenious with us and my husband about continue the
9:19 am
presentation. >> good evening robert the project manager or project sponsor we made a.m. an assessment to understand the particular issues we did conceive neighborhood outreach with the neighbors total of 8 times to understand their concerns and respond appropriatedly we've been religiously about the good morning, supervisors and working closely with the staff to come up with a sensitive design by volunteer good neighborhood gestures lower the neighborhood blow the height humility limit and provided generous side and rear set backs; right with regards to the appellants building we understand their concerns we understand that the guidelines has provisions how to address the shared light wells,
9:20 am
however, if you compare the guidelines example with the actual condition the courtyard is had times larger than at that time example given in the r d g i'll repeat here light yard is 4 times larger than the guidelines if you look at the photos you'll see no property line windows and her windows get direct so we took her concerns seriously our engineer invited the site and it was reviewed by the residential design team in changes were necessary has partnerships we did a shadow sued only shadows in the rest of the year no impact whatsoever in summary the
9:21 am
appellant were considered by ourself no design changes were needed or required no now information that and no procedural errors this is not a controversial projectile just the reverse 53 we have the support of our adjacent neighbors and the neighborhood and the support of the planning department and the residential design team and the inspections with the inspections praising our project so to conclude we feel we've done everything we can identified the issues and responded appropriately we don't believe there is a significant impact to the appellant thank y you. >> thank you. we, hear from mr.
9:22 am
t. >> good evening again commissioner president lazarus and commissioners corey t from the planning staff the permit at hand open the 27th street the permit was submitted no march 2013 it was reviewed by the residential design team with within the planning department to specifically to the residential guidelines in terms of the design it was found to be compliant with both the department heard the concerns the project was taken back to the design team at that review the issues it was a in debt review again found compliant with the residential guidelines and 311 notification was sent out in december of 2013 and ended in january of 2014 the
9:23 am
project required a mandatory discretionary review because it was demolition of a dwelling unit and the construction of two replacement units it had to go before the planning commission it was before the planning commission of may of this year all the concerns that were raised for this appeal were raised for that discretionary review hearing the planning commission did unanimously approve the project with no conditions consistent with the guidelines to conclude the planning code and the design guidelines put an emphasis why here in the city and strive to strike 9 balance with the dense development that is existing and going to occur within the city with that in mind it was determined it was in compliant with the tools and documents to try to strike that balance and
9:24 am
it was approved so considering no new information the department feels that permit was issued appropriately i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> all the objections were raised at this time. >> yes. and also i need to you notice the law firm i retained i can look at the briefs and make a fair judgment. >> mr. duffy so we'll take public comment any public comment on that item? everyone can please step forward it will help us move along feast stand on the one side of the room please whoever wants to speak first come forward.
9:25 am
>> commissioner president lazarus. >> good evening thank you for taking the time to hear us i'm one of the owners on 27th street the reason i'm here to sport i o support my tenants that are greatly effected by the addition by the project on 27th street i was not present at the i believe that was a meet-and-greet meeting they had any sister showed up she was national aware it was 3 stories height so at the time i didn't know it was going to impact the direct sunlight in our property had i known i would have and the this sooner as well as notified the tenants of what would impact them by moving in or their existing living conditions
9:26 am
i support any tenants they'll suffer most of the impact 95 percent the direct daylight effects the courtyards the east is the only heat year round and the permit holders current design 3 stories high which is at the edge of our mature property line the two units that will be compacted number of murdock's and which will top 95 percent of the sunshine and impact apartment number 3 below her our biggest concern is not been taken into account despite this is a negative impact on the current design and i ask you reconsider our appeal and take
9:27 am
into account. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners my name is a daniel i'm joined by my wife brenda we live on 28 street in noah valley and i've known the folks we want to raise our families here over else last seven years because raising a family if san francisco means the support of friends that share your values robert and vivian we're happy to call our friends rob and vivian's children go to our schools and
9:28 am
most importantly rob and vivian have cultivated friendship with their neighbors i live in only our only home and i believe rob and vivian want to build thaib their own family home from the beginning they've explained the vision on 26th street they want to create something special they've been concerned with the design of their homes we believe will be fantastic people are flip this home to try to make money simply don't know them they've not taken the time to see their commitment to the neighborhood as committed to their family we strongly support rob and vivian to build
9:29 am
home. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm brenda wise man a neighbor of robbing and vivian i live on 27th street i'm here to read a letter to whom it may concern i have a letter we're the owners at 45027th street neighborhoods to rob and vivian our neighbors have been scared throughout the process to try to permit their home they instructed us about the plans once and draw it on paper left the door open to request moifgz we may have they've listened to
9:30 am
the conversation prudent person to our question and other neighbors have done the same vivian and robert discussed their plans their architects and well-versed if a project as well as to do to maintain good neighborly conditions i'm understanding most neighbors are of support and if we can be of more sports lowest us know signed. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> oh, i didn't fill one out i'm jooent speaking no support