Skip to main content

We're fighting for the future of our library in court. Show your support now!

tv   Planning Commission 10616  SFGTV  October 10, 2016 2:00am-4:01am PDT

2:00 am
shadow finding and large project authorization. >> good afternoon commissioiner fong and members of the commission commissioners commissioner koppel and commissioner melgar welcome department staff in a nut shell is a request for a large project authorization pursuant to planning code section to allow an exemption to the rear yard requirements as stipulated in the planning code to demolish an existing warehouse and allow a 4 story mixed use misrepresent family building to accommodate student housing for the academy of art and four ground floor units to provide 7 thousand plus square feet of commercial use locate at arkansas street the property four story mixed use measures 64 thousand plus square feet with thirty dwelling units and 4 ground floor commercial units no off-street
2:01 am
parking, 40 characterizing and 14 class 2 bike parking spaces the project includes a dwelling unit mix with 3, two bedrooms and 27 four-bedroom unit to date newcomers correspondence and all said correspondence including letters from the california academy of art and the san francisco housing action coalition and friends of jackson park amongst others are expressed expert witness support in their in your packet and several letters were submitted after the packet was published that were forwarded you to and printed for your consideration the department recommends approval consistent with the planning code and in evaluating the pros and cons the department found it includes the demolition of pdr space provides new student housing and commercial
2:02 am
opportunities that on balance come policing apply with the policies the housing element requires higher educational institutions for - further it encourages to the plan for full range of housing needs in the city and county of san francisco especially affordable housing the housing element calls for planning and the mayor's office of housing to exposure incentives for housing and in consideration the project maximize the building height and provides thirty student housing xhoomentd 200 and 28 beds to the housing stock per case - the planning commission recently found concluded and determined a shortage of 40 thousand bed in
2:03 am
student housing and the shortfall is the overall hicks in a limited housing stock and an update identified aa alcatraz street as a city for student housing in order for the college to be widely regarded as one of the art institutions it needed additional space including housing the proposed project to accommodate student housing in san francisco cca provides housing on mission district with approximately 200 beds and at 38 harriet with 42 beds and will provide more bedding and at hoper with 6 hundred beds 34 this will accommodate one thousand 70 beds with 2000 students enrolled will
2:04 am
accommodate 40 percent of the population the showplace square and moscone are encouraged and instructs us to maximize in keeping with the neighborhood character in particular, the project is compatible with the mass and scale other property and 4 and 5 mixed use property located nearby on 15 and 16 street those seeking a rear yard modification conversation the project provides sufficient rear yard square footage to meet the size the project has been sealed in the interim design and was in conformation based on a detailed shadow analyze it casts approximately .00 one percent of the annual sunlight this is a
2:05 am
property under the jurisdiction of the san francisco rec and park department based on the recommendation of the general manager of the rec and park department in consultation with the oornsdz the net percent of shadow will not be adverse to the jackson park given the project proximity to 3 placements with the bottom of the hill, the park side and yankee made a motion to the rec and park the recommended noise for projects one 16 as well as additional student housing specific conditions all said conditions are part of this motion and that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> okay project sponsor please.
2:06 am
>> as soon as you start speaking sfgovtv will go to the screen. >> good afternoon. i'm susan brown a equity community builders joined by the project sponsor simon and steve our land use attorney and our architect as you can see on the screen the property is two blocks south of the college in are mixed use neighborhood at the because of potrero hill it provides thirty units of student housing u student housing four bedrooms the four story building with offense and twenty-four hour security in the building each you weren't floor a two-bedroom parapet all benefits face the courtyard with abundant light
2:07 am
and air and bike parking exceeds the code requirements we've included a curve with fissures that provides gathering space on arkansas street and a white street at the residential lobby on arc a street and ground floor commercial space provides food and services for the students and the neighborhood with a kitchen available at no charge to neighborhood groups advertised code compliant it is the only lp a exemption because to - critical for the 2018, 2019 academic year we're asking for your approval we've been meeting with the community over a year including the booster and friends of jackson park and save the hill and dog patch merchant association and made adjustment to the design based on feedback from the boosters and committed
2:08 am
to work with friends of jackson park you have letters of support as well as newcomers letters including the letters from the boosters and we need to attract students and confident the students will be great neighbors thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is simon 75 arkansas owned by my family since 1973 housed a paper company the building we renovated it and enjoyed working with the potrero hill for 6 years we sold our business and the building was as rental property at the same time cca was building their presence with the old greyhound property
2:09 am
in a sheer invention i joined the brf cca a handmaid papermaker in soma and san francisco i love any time at cac and served on every committee and as chairman of the board from 2002 to 2005 and remained in an active role ever since we need to provide for housing for our students if we remain relevant t a place parents can leave their children in a safe environment the school made arrangements to - this action released some housing pressure but not enough i decided to see if i could work with the college to develop any he housing property i'm not a developer but with the help of a great team we've pieced something called
2:10 am
blended value my family can't make a donation of the building but didn't need to make the kind of money that a property like arkansas modest bring if we sold to a professional building inspection to build condominium we've blend our opportunity for cca to provide safe housing to students and at reasonable rent this is exist we're 24rir8d by the chance to add student housing in san francisco and especially the california college of art opportunities thank you very much. >> good afternoon. commissioner president fong and members of the commission i'm david explaining planning for academy of art cca signed a master lease with simon we're a one and
2:11 am
9-year-old nonprofit accredited post secondary institution with a plan we updated to anticipate this project this housing will be in sight and walking distance of the san francisco campus in the neighborhood for thirty years no jessie street there is a housing supply and affordable constructive notice for affordable students housing the challenges are greater fortunately, we have student legislation to help to address i'm help happy to say the cca and conservator of music are many students living and panoramic the first student housing to benefit from this legislation those 4 hundred students are no longer whooet e cheating with working families for units and freeing up capacity in this precious unit hike throughout the city this new facility on arkansas is
2:12 am
3ri6r789 made up of 4 bedroom units and will do the same not only create 200 plus beds for students but free up family-sized units those students will not b&b be impacting together to rental we're a nonprofit college and not a developer we play a sustained roll in improving our neighborhood and the city at large virtually all of the eastern neighborhoods workshops we are hosted at a our campus and ongoing programs with spur focusing an urban issues some of the work can be viewed on the city because the city housing the next one hundred thousand at the scale of the neighborhood working with the planning department pavement to parks initiate and with community stakeholders we just opened tunnel top a park an 25 and
2:13 am
pennsylvania an open space transformation designed and fabricated by cca students we think continue to do this type of work going forward and committed this pro bono to friends of jackson park finally let me emphasis the goal is affordability for students simon is not a developer the students pay operating costs only no profit motivate or real estate play only affordable housing for students with over 74 percent of cca student body an financial aid i guarantee you those are be some of the financing under resources and grateful residents in the entire neighborhood thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners and richard the
2:14 am
design is an outcome of thoughtfully cca needs for student apartment and community spaces into a former site the project site sits as a transition between the large-scale semi industrial to the noting north and smaller scale neighborhood sloping to the south the design response to both conditions by focusing on potrero hill residential design guidelines the guidelines emphasis on awareness of scales and materials the 3 main designs guidelines are number one harmonizing visual relationships within streets and open spaces, two rendering facades with to your knowledge take care and detail and depth and third modulating the building vertically and horizontally i'll zoom in on those guidelines. >> sorry for the interruption
2:15 am
if sfgovtv can go to the computer thank you. >> at the ground floor the building is distinguished from the upper floors it is designed to be an engaging commercial front with entrances at corner of 17th street and arkansas the sidewalks setback from the - retail awnings provide a scale the sidewalks will be widen for possible to provide for additional landscape features moving to the middle residential floors which their modulated by horizontally by bay windows including a special bay window at the corner opposite of jackson park at the top floor it is the distinguished by a single story
2:16 am
bay window and an open window continue - thank you >> we may have additional comments after public comment opening up for public comment (calling names) you can line up on this side of the room please. if your name has been called feel free to approach the podium. >> game-changer my name is jeremy i'm an. >> must have at cca and proud to be the new owner of the 6-year-old window manufacturing company in the bay area i've helped to advice from the green and the environmental impact
2:17 am
aspect of the windows but i really want to talk about my experience at cca and the fact i almost lost my ability to go to school by a eviction by my landlord i fought for 6 months costs thousand of dollars i really believe without the housing security that projects like offers we current have 47 employees and did $10 million of business we're active in the committee but those types of projects allow students like myself to become business owners in san francisco. >> thank you, mr. drucker. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> i'm suzy i own a drafting
2:18 am
design and prototyping supply base called acre for the past 16 years is in a stone's throw of cca indeed when we moved out of jackson square - the school supported us as the venues on the hirl with the patron age two years ago we were booted out of our home because the landlord can charge more to others tenants and no small supervisor of the materials to move cca found space on their campus to temporarily house us while we were in limbo they saved us and we truly would have gone out of business after 36 years of
2:19 am
successfully running an independent women owned business with 12 employees cca is the definition of a good neighbor they've welcomed the community into their spaces to use as gathering spots in which to discuss the general neighbor concerns and brought in designers to potrero hill and the dog patch and mission to teach classes. by the same token helped put the neighborhood together by holding unvenal venues throughout the neighborhood they've urged their students to step off campus and explore and discover the scopes of possibility and build a customer base for the future clobbers with the industrial designs the a i a as recently
2:20 am
considered honoring the institution for enhanced the didn't community by making significant improvements to the property that had a positive impact on the surrounding area i completely support their efforts to addressing add to the available housing stock in an area students will not need to own cars to get to school >> thank you. next speaker. commissioners ron when an art institution is on your agenda ear hearing me speak against 2 you know the one i refer and sue hester as spoken about that supporting it earlier this afternoon will remind you again, however, today we are dealing with a entirely art institution
2:21 am
which is respectful of our great city sensitive in its development to whom i'm a proud supporter cca my involvement is to when catalysts held workshops a laigs out the development for mission bay those are hosting by cca more recently the public meetings were one of the largest pdr including a building for sfmade and others hosted anothers cca you've heard of they're hosting most of meeting for the eastern neighborhoods pr and then there was a series of conversation regarding design controls for the eastern neighborhoods 1y0i7b8g sports by the potrero boosters and cca and we were pleased to have some of the commissioners participate in those those controls were
2:22 am
codified by supervisor cowen and pavtd passed by this commission and this project is obviously in conformity in keeping with the student housing legislation enforced by the commission 75 arkansas is a major step in creating a true campus for this great institution it is exactly what is needed by cca and by our city and what you look for when you review an institutional master plan a true campus it roaches the students population if competing in the housing stock and enhances the true nature of a student college participation and it is obviously as you've heard endorsed by the entire neighborhood as to the design i food for thought the evolution at boo did potrero boosters and the dog
2:23 am
patch association outreach effort their fantastic i have individual meetings with the project architects and i am very satisfied with the evolution of the design i have to remind you the time it of the essence for in order to meet the demand of academics year i urge to endorse 75 arkansas thank you, mr. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim colen, san francisco housing action coalition. on behalf of the three hundred members speaking strongly in support of this project and it's bad luck to follow ron to the podium our members reviewed it recently and love it period. >> and i guess i won't add to wasn't mr. miguel said the housing coalition helped to
2:24 am
write and pass legislation for student housing supported and based by bev convenient and the second by the supervisor wiener and after those passed somewhere the second piece of it around 2012 t it died no student housing we thoughtful with or attractive incentives we're delighted to start seeing the glimmer that student housing will be an active product that san francisco will produce i don't know that it is 40 thousand but 50 thousand beds shortfall in san francisco we need to step up and address and get more schools to look at how to satisfy the demand they're helping to create this is a great project at a great time and great place would there were more in front of you this was we're concerned about the timeline they need to get this going in a hurry they
2:25 am
have a narrow window to deliver to be successful for the school i urge you to get this out of here in a hurry it is a great project. >> thank you, mr. cohen. >> next speaker, please. >> hello good afternoon complirgz my name is dennis i'm here supporting in project at 75 arkansas i'm a journey man carpenter and a member of the carpenters local 22 i'm a lifelong resident born and raised in the bayview hunters point here in the city and have been involved in my community throughout the oefshgsz like apr i and served on the pack board graduated locally and continued my education at city college and
2:26 am
the carpet union helped me with my welding skilled and become certified from classes priority to the union members as a carpenter i often have to travel out of the city to find work this project will give me an opportunity to work in my own backyard to give back to messiah my community and also communities to young men and women in any community to enter into the carpenter heinecke program to allow people to develop skills that will lead them to a carpenter job and a chance to capacity he poverty someone this is a to build san francisco after i retire i'm asking the planning commission vote to approve this development today thank you for your time and allowing me to speak.
2:27 am
>> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for the opportunity in allowing they to speak my name is carlo i'm a field represent for carpenters local 22 in san francisco representing approximately 4 thousand members some of which are here today carpenters local 22 fully supports the development team and the proposed student housing on 75 arkansas that is a well-rounded better known the surrounding community labor and the students that are who will be occupant of this appealing structure through exit community builders using a general contractor that will provides jobs along with health and pension benefits that creates opportunity for local san franciscans and veterans to
2:28 am
enter into a heinecapprenticesht - this is paved the way to speak in favor of that that will help carpenters to contribute to a growing city and create student housing for young scholars can live here along with thirty units of student housing this project will have 3 thousand plus of common space that is open to the community and in conclusion, this project is good for carpenters and students and the community so i urge the planning commission to push this project forward by voting to approve it today thank you for allowing me to speak in full support of this project.
2:29 am
>> thank you, mr. duran. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners j are constantly wanting of the boosters neighborhood association i'm pleased to report that the potrero boosters support this and ask you approve that has recommended bowed planting it addresses several of the concerns we've raised with other neighborhood development in particular, the massing is broken down into the elements the ground floor is activated with a percentage of the frontage dedicated to commercial space lack of parking and lack of car ownership insures drastic impacts on the local shed we may have a couple of quibbles with the design in terms of a little bit more visual appeal the design presented is a significant improvement to the initial plan we have a
2:30 am
long-standing and positive relationship with the college of the arts and cca is an actual member of the community on its doors and advocating for structure and providing design and fabrication for the neighborhood wear glad that cca is providing substantial services to jackson park adjacent to the project and look forward to see what their coming up with and late wear pleased this project will help to address the citywide need for student housing we feel this is an example the student housing down right rather than the housing resources or seeking so avoid funding for the impacts cca is constructing new unit within the constraint with active engagement to the community that is modeled for the other institutions of prior learning thank you very much. >> thank you, sir.
2:31 am
>> one wore you and one for me - >> sue hester i'm speaking on behalf of the organization that has been dealing with that and building housing to deal with the city's needs for a long time one of our board members happens happens to be a dean at another college and we have been graerp with the need for student housing for the last ten years with the academy of art but we have really struggling in this city with schools that are
2:32 am
saying we need to build student housing there is letters directed to the planning department from the nonprofit housing - nonprofit educational institutions which major i've nn the people stepping up and saying our institutions are realistic for having students at the canned afford the housing and competing with the market in san francisco this year that is acknowledgment by cca that they are dealing with this issue cca and the conservator by taking the lease at 9 and mission was a major step what we have to deal with now is two other entities one is state entities that don't have regulation from you and it
2:33 am
is on the other side of the harriet overhead please. the site of the housing for cca is marked on here and the open street a bus yard this area is reigned for part of the eastern neighborhoods it is been changed to dense student housing - dense housing it is a great solution except we have an open airbus yard who owns that open airbus yard well someone that should be building student housing the academy of art secondly this is the area and you have this area over here which is ucsf we don't have power over and their currently planning on
2:34 am
building supposed to build their housing in dog patch which is the eastern neighborhoods the planning commission has to speak up on both of these one the academy of art, and, secondly, deal with the ucsf thank you ms. hester is there any public comment is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'll start i'll be brief i'll paraphrase mr. cohen this is the right project in the right place. >> director rahaim director rahaim there is great support this is strongly supportive but i wanted to take an opportunity to mention the student housing there are 5 institutions in the
2:35 am
city that are proposing new student housing and 3 of them in the department for review 3 of the institutions, of course, are state ucsf, sf state and hastings they're proposing student housing i'm meeting with ucsf and have met with them i'll asked them to come to the commission and report on their purchases in the dog patch how they intend to use the parcels they will build to code technically they're not required to and, of course, the conservatory of music has a proposal at the cca and as you may know we are in negotiations with the academy of art only part of global estimate you'll hear about that in closed session on november 3rd we all agree there is a clear lack of
2:36 am
student housing over the couple of years there is - it is changing dramatically in the last few months and 5 and hopefully 6 major institutions will be coming forward with student housing in the coming years. >> thank you, thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i'm very supportive of that project congratulations to cca for making it happen and kind of leading the way we see too often struggles that institutions and nonprofit institutions and organizational institutions you've been able to come up come up with maintaining and expanding our presence in the city that's great, thank you for making this happen it is a great partnership with the community choice aggregation is a great neighborhood in the neighborhood so i'm glad you'll be able to remain here and remain stronger i'm very much in support of
2:37 am
that. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. i'd like to echo the comments of commissioner hillis where else can we see a project full of 4 bedrooms and also being supported by the reasonable growth of federal, state, and local that doesn't happen everyday and i'm excited to s to see the rooftop plan and a lot of potential to help out the facility with renewable energy. >> commissioner moore. >> i think this project is a thank you to all the particular ones i wanted to mention the property owner one of the few creative lows we hear about we hear a lot about flipping of properties and moma return and openly it is intreps this is an
2:38 am
uplifting story and everyone has contributed to a positive project truly in the tradition of cca so congratulations to all move to approve? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve this matter with conditions. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> commissioners item 16 has been continued that places us under your discretionary review for item 17. >> all combined item 17 for case 2015-2 at
2:39 am
filbert if those of you departing do so quietly we have business to take care of thank you. >> did the commission get copies of the letter that came in earlier this morning? >> good afternoon brittany of department staff the request for a discretionary review at
2:40 am
filbert street the project is a 3 story horizontal of a 3 story home and staesht of a roof deck and the addition of an elevator penthouse the rear yard required a variance from the planning code rear yard they heard in july 2015 the zoning administrator has indicated he will grant the rear yard surveillance this project came before the planning commission on january 21st, 2016, however, continued it was unclear whether or not the roof deck was set up with a permit upon review the properties history it become equivalent the planning department had for the approved it the project sponsor revised it to add assess by a spiral staircase those changes required
2:41 am
the neighborhood notification for planning code 311 and during the notification a dr was filed in addition the department is aware of 3 individuals in opposition to the project the cal hallow association is opposed to the project since the packets were sent to the commission last week the department has received 5 letters of support and one in opposition from individuals in the neighborhood and those letters were just distributed to you now about the dr requesters live across the street from the the subject property on 2456 filbert street both four story names uphill from the the subject property and their concerns generally are federal, state, and local the elevator penthouse is contrary to the cal 4508 guidelines the proposed elevator penthouse will effect all neighbors and the general public
2:42 am
will be impacted by the proposed elevator penthouse that will be visual from filbert and 1994 proposal that include the penthouse was denied by the planning commission, that the roof deck is rarely use and other roof deck and finally, the dr requesters disputes they need it for health reasons the requests were reviewed by the residential design team that xukd it didn't create any exceptional or extraordinary, however, the rdt states the rooftop can effect other locations it was filed the proposed penthouse is minimal in size and any just a minute lightwells the rdt noted the adjacent buildings the structure
2:43 am
cantonese had been recently space for those reasons the department is supporting the project and recommends not take dr that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> project sponsor please. >> it says one minute oh, 10 minutes. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and mechanics i'm jim ruben reuben, junius & rose working with the project sponsor before i go further i'd like to since my first appearance since commissioner koppel and commissioner melgar have been appointed i'd like to congratulate you and welcome you you've seen others of my firm but not met you'll see more
2:44 am
we've been working with doug and raymond the project sponsors the code compliant of the renovation although is a horizontal with the discretionary review requesters are focused solely on the elevator override of the rooftop as relevant in the staff recommendation the elevator setback 37 feet from the front wall and can't be seen state penitentiary street and to accommodate a minimum sized can be we're aware this planning commission is reviewed elevator overrides on the roofs of many projects over the last year we've thinking the commission is reviewing each discretionary review opposition on the facts of the case and the facts and case when factored in makes a difference the family is not new to 24 filbert lived there 40
2:45 am
years and been a contributing acting family they're not a young family capable of using stairs we may not like to think this we'll all age dogging u doug and raymond are in the room not expecting to speak their respectfully not a young come up doug had a hip replacement and 79 years old the roof deck is part of a their space but that space is not assessable by way of stairs in fact, they are home includes an elevator on floors 1, 2, 3 this expends the elevator to the basement a caregivers room and allows the access for doug we know that the
2:46 am
elevator at the rooftop is code compliant and only considered because of the dr in an situation where issues arise in not code compliant a request can be made under the planning code section to surveyor the code and be able the rooftop elevators not the case, however, worst noting in a non-compliant the zoning administrator can lie this the elevator is setback and not strishl from the street and this is the case here the family is well known and well licked and contributed to the fabric of cal hallow their reflected in the 16 letters written by neighbors and supportive of the application here's a overhead showing you whoops
2:47 am
where the supporters are coming from i think this is worth noting that one of the letters in support is from former planning commissioner doug he's been i have a of active in the land use commission for many years and says the staffing same things as san franciscans get older elevators are a necessity for residents that wish to stay in their homes in their in their san jose and lived in their home 70 years with an artificial right hip needs the elevator for the roof deck i hope this commission about ask to approve this project at the hearing that's from a former planning commissioner a neighbor. >> it is very difficult to get members of the public to come to the planning commission hearings
2:48 am
to support project sponsors advertised not into difficult to get people here to oppose but the family has a couple of neighbors maybe 3 to address you directly we understand that issue is placed a discretionary review are not decided by poetsdz popularity contest but hope e hope you'll consider this application from others you've recently heard and hope out not take discretionary review and approve the project. >> mr. rubin i set the time for 10 but you have 5 you have to wrap up i apologize. >> one other they know last night we received a letter from a date consultant the day before the hearing which i you know reacted to but discussing it with others in my law firm i
2:49 am
discoveries on october thirds we received the olive letter from the disabled corridor or consultant from a hearing held the next day october 22nd that was a hearing before this commission on 27 two it seems coincidental that the letters would come the net before the hearing on two occasions i wonder we won that hearing in october but it is streep's to me mr. rubin i apologize again, you do actually have 10 minutes two dr requesters my apologies sorry about that if we have additional time i want louis butler to talk
2:50 am
about the issues alternative means of assessing that roof deck. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is louis low-hanging fruit letter the architect for this project or for douglas when i first visited them i've known them for 20 years they've specific about what they wanted me to address one basic question can this serve as a house for us in our ripe 08d age we looked at the closely and my answer was yes, they felt strongly to assess owl floors of the house as before i relied i think we can do that put an elevator penthouse on the roof and have it be minimum impact on the straight for the
2:51 am
neighbors i think we'll have a successful project that's the beginning to stay in their house the house is 32 feet high below the housing eliminate the override is 4 navy below the chimney and skylights and so forth we've lowered to 7 feet from the front necessary for the mechanism and 6 inches for structure again that takes the top of the penthouse to 4 navy feet blow what is allowable it is 3 feet blow the allowable height limit it is for the house to the east underwent a large remodel a story was added it is full 35 feet with roof deck above that and the house to the west it has a penthouse we're in context
2:52 am
with those houses as mr. rubin states this is not visual from the public right-of-way at all especially the house at the east has been adam virtually impossible to see this penthouse unless you're in the air the other thing to address the alternatives to elevators and lifts will be mentioned i think stair chairs will be mentions basically those alternatives exist for situations you can't have an elevator it is the ideal method for move up and down and all other alternative people go to when when they subsequent can and cannot do have an elevator we have the admiral situations dealing with those alternatives tare heavy and mechanically less reliable and require a transfer
2:53 am
from the chairlift those lifts are very, very slow one forget of an elevator if i think about this project being true to its goal which is to provide an ada compliant single-family home for a couple to be in forever the elevator should go to the top and something that came up the legalization of the opinionated one of the dr requesters the building department review of the roof deck this roof deck has been reviewed by a senior official and with the house it is 100 percent compliant in all rights the other thing the house faces north the only observed space that truly gets sun that's
2:54 am
the roof deck thank you you can see, of course. >> commissioners, i ask your apologizes between mr. owen and i, we handles this particular case differently we asked do project sponsor to speak first, we should have had the dr requesters first slightly out of order we want the dr requesters two of them and each of you will have 5 minutes, 5 minutes for each dr requester team. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission this is the first time i've presented in front of the commission i wasn't aware the
2:55 am
high tech he h have handful part of the public presentation but they're just presented a little bit more easily to assess for you i'd like to start by giving historical perspective regarding this application and the prior application the reasons this application should be denied you'll hear from 5 neighbors opposing the application who live across the street from the same side and the cal hallow representative the prior application for think elevator roof deck box was denied by this planning commission 20 years ago as decision should not be reserved what happened well, first, i heard the prior speakers talk about the roof deck that previously he can say
2:56 am
i'll say they've had a roof deck that roof deck was illegal that had flooring and furniture and railing the project sponsors 26 letters quote the project sponsor erroneously building that had legal permits that is impossible if i look at exhibit 1 and two it had it crossed off and that roof deck and elevator were denied i don't know how they can say it which is properly permitted it is a undertaken from the history not a mistake it was an intentional effort to pass off the roof deck to skirt the fire code requirements that's why that was taken off we pointed out they've misrepresented the roof deck when it of was not permitted
2:57 am
they said they need the roof deck for access this is not needed now they're very active i see mrs. going to exercise class and mr. gets coffee for their family they're in fine shape but if this is not needed there are alternatives to elevators and the elevator is not as mr. butler said the preferred mechanism it is in the cal hallow association guidelines passed in 2017 we've attached exhibit 4 and this is what cal hallow association says it says the need for large mechanism roof deck equipment is rarely necessary to provide access to a roof deck for open stairs and stair lifts open elevator lifts are available
2:58 am
there is - if you look at the plans for the families proposal exhibit 3 as you can see the exterior staircase at the rear of the property and that easily can be the lift ecp a list could be accommodated it is easy for the roof deck assess if they desire we're not against the roof deck or development we actually remodeled the house next door to the family across the street and put in a roof deck we also put in access to exterior stair for the cal hallow guidelines we did that and remodeled a house in the neighborhood and did the same thing we're not effected by that house we put a roof deck but used interior staircase this
2:59 am
shall happen here to sum up this commission denied a roof line elevator previously sincethanasia then a legal rooftop was built and it was to skirt the mechanisms and the cal hallow guidelines supports alternative mechanisms and the planning commission should reach the same decision one more comment from my wife. >> high aim the second half of the first dr we have a second dr that was filed he also wanted to point out as neighbors 4 attempts to reach out to the project sponsor the first was in the variance hearing the head of the variance committee asked specifically to
3:00 am
louis butler. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> you have a two minute rebuttal at the end. >> i'm come back. >> you are - and the second dr two drs. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission i'm dick the on filbert street the last 21 years i'm one of the dr applicants and want to rrlts request that the planning commission deny the application for an elevator penthouse open 2463 filbert and require an alternative means of the assess the 1994 a similar elevator penthouse was property by the same owns of 2463 filbert street the applicants visibly
3:01 am
dental application for an elevator penthouse was denied i happened to be at that meeting nothing has changed all the houses will virtually in the seam position, the elevator penthouse allows views of two bedrooms, two living rooms directly across the street and certainly precedence for denying a new application the project sponsors have repeatedly refused to meet with the neighbors to discuss the rooftop penthouse it was introduced to the neighbors in march of 2030 and the neighbors ask the the project sponsor to meet with them to consider at methods of assessing the roof they have never followed up out of a variance meeting the project sponsor was directed to work with the neighbors they did
3:02 am
the dr applicant and the board mediation contacted the project sponsor and they refused to meet on september 15th planning commission meeting he asked the project sponsor attorney for a meeting and again there was no follow-up the january 21st hearing was cancelled which the placing planning department was made aware by the neighbors the roof deck was misrepresented when, in fact, it was for the approved the plans for the elevator penthouse if meet the access for ingress and egress from the roof deck the project sponsor overlooked this and agreed to sprinkle the entire building this is the second example of not meeting the requirements showing a pattern of disregard for planning requirement there are alternatives to roof
3:03 am
assess methods that didn't require a penthouse and better suited to the neighborhood and can accomplish the same needs of neighbors owns even those with disabilities you'll hear the cal hallow association passed guidelines it strongly opposed elevator penthouse for gene assess to the roof decks we ask the planning commission to deny the construction of an elevator penthouse and require alternative means of access thank you. >> okay - >> are you part of dr requester team and okay speak about the my case there. >> the microphone there. >> oh. >> thank you. >> my name is mini even though
3:04 am
i lived there for 50 years and wish them all the goodwill they should have but i don't think that is the right kind of structure to put up it jets out uncomfortably and it is - i've never seen them on the roof deck ever and my studio looks out on that i think that is just not well-thought-out and i prefer that the elevator structure which is really big will not be there and they'll do that another way to get to the roof thank you. >> okay. i think that
3:05 am
concludes - does the conclude the dr requesters okay. hang on one second jonas we'll ask the speakers in support of project first and then speakers opposed to the project next and have both dr requesters and project sponsor with a two minute rebuttal at this time asking for speakers in support of project public comment. >> thank you commission my name is tucker hyatt the founding director of wonder festive the beacon of conceives wonder festive a 19-year-old population of science i was a high school teacher to two of the child to support the families request because of their dedication to community
3:06 am
welfare they've served as trustees board members at nonprofits conducting connecticut arrested house with chronicic illnesses and wonder festive the beacon science and doug was a member of the festive and the family has offered their homes for board meetings and other activities i want to thank you for your consideration consideration of doug and raymond of their circumstances and of the nonprofit like wonder festive they've supported so greatly. >> okay additional speakers in support of project sponsor?
3:07 am
>> i'm nancy i'm a friend of doug and raymond i've known them for 13 years and i've do not live on filbert but in the marina and here to support doug and raymond on the work they want to do in they're new home to live there until they're old age i've gone to their house often know they have an elevator i've actually never seen doug take the stairs always has to use the elevator and when it was mentioned going to get coffee i think that he derives to starbuck's to get his coffee not walk to that so the elevator is quite important to the family the
3:08 am
family all comes there to gather they traffic a lot and back to the house and want to enjoy their home into they're old age that's why i'm here to support doug and raymond. >> thank you. next speaker in support of dr requester and against the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners - commission my hearing aid - >> my name is ronald and i guess on i'm the gather of the street my dad built the 0 house adjacent to this in 1952 new between the folks and their house i've known them quite a few years ago a group added a deck and roof deck between the
3:09 am
douglas and raymond and my house i'm told by the architect you can't - we can take your view away i had a view the golden gate bridge and they took quite a bit of that away so i said - he said we can't take your light but we'll take your view i knew the folks very well and my house i have an elevator also and it is a vaccinated thing when you get old especially a bad hippy also have a bad hip i'm here in support of folks they've been wonderful in the neighborhood for years i think maybe i think i'm going to put in a roof deck my daughter moves on in there i was two i was here two months ago i
3:10 am
know you guys well that's it i hope you take my consideration i have to go home and watch the 49ers losses. >> anyone in support of dr requesters and against the project sponsor. >> seeing none, opening up for public comment of speakers in support of dr requesters and against the project. >> commissioner my name is malcolm i live in cal hallow on the board of cal hallow association area here this afternoon on behalf of the association to support the the subject property dr the last time i was here in october 2017 supporting the cal hallows in opposition to a proposed starter online
3:11 am
as you recall the project sponsors claim the word of parents was confined to a wheelchair and needs on elevator to access the roof decks they provided an ada expert that testified there were alternatives to reach the roof deck one of the things that the preordain o project architect said that the folks needs to get to the roof deck did reality the roof deck is used infrequently yet the housing of 8 and a half feet is there permanently that impacts the neighbors on the up slope the cal hallow guidelines with regard to the stair penthouse says the installation of roof deck penthouse throughout the city is an issue of serious concern to the public and the planning department inasmuch as penthouses may expand structures to learn maybe compatible with
3:12 am
surrounding structures and may block sunlight and views the construction of elevators and stair penthouses can greatly effect the neighborhood characteristic as preserved from higher locations within the neighborhood the associations recently request you deny the application to e vehicle an elevator penthouse on filbert thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello good afternoon my name is samantha i'm with chandler properties and representing mr. rule barker as his project manager he lived directly across the street on filbert and he can't be here today unfortunately, because he's very quiet ill
3:13 am
mr. barker as lived directly across the street from the the subject property all his life the property industry will obstruct the view from mr. bakers property that will also obstruct his privacy as it looks directly into the large bay window in the center of many bakers property this will greatly create the intrinsic value of mr. bakers property as you may know in san francisco views add a large premium to a properties worth it is reviewed in 1994 and denied it is unclear to mr. baker why this is being heard again as i mentioned before mr. baker is quite ill he can't be here
3:14 am
the owner across the street has used this opportunity to take advantage of the fact that he can't be here today as he's the homeowner directly across the street and directly effected by this and he also didn't understand why it is even being heard it was denied in 1994 neighbors have committed commented in light 12 years i've lived there not seen anyone on the structure and don't understand why this is a need for this assess there are 5 families here today including mr. baker i'm representing and their directly effected by this mr. baker feels this is easy for folks to come out in support of project that are not directly effected by the obstruction that this is going to create but that is he that will be the
3:15 am
most effected as like i said he is directly across the street on behalf of mr. baker i'd like to request the commission not approve this in keeping with the same decision in 1994 thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i commissioners my name is linda dalton good afternoon is this better? i reside on filbert street i oppose the elevator penthouse at this 6 filbert that will have a negative effect on the character the neighborhood and distinguish the quality of life for 5 families today, there are far alternatives assess methods that
3:16 am
again require a penthouse that are better suited to the neighborhood and accommodate the needs of homeowners even those with disabilities i ask the commission to deny the application inform erect a elevator penthouse and require an alternative means of access thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> is that everyone for public comment? >> besides me. >> right we haven't called for rebuttal. >> you've already spoken. >> i have a few seconds. >> you're part of dr requester team that's right. >> any other speakers in support of dr requester yeah. >> okay rebuttal
3:17 am
project sponsor and then the dr requesters two minutes each. >> but he gets. >> he gets two minutes. >> so very quickly just to address a couple of things raised this is in the patterns but prior application yes, that's correct a prior application over 20 year ago that was denied prior for an override much larger than you're looking at included a elevator and additional space that's not the reason it was denied it was denied at the time legislation pending before the city to eliminate any elevator overrides anywhere and the commission felt this is inappropriate while the legislation was pending they'd my understanding how the commission acts if there is - >> mr. rubin can you speak a little bit into the mike.
3:18 am
>> that's right the same thing what legislation pending alternative yeah, of course, there are commercial alternatives that you find mostly in commercial applications not homes their inferior to an elevator with a shaft into the building you've extend to the basement for the caregiver space and hopefully up to the roof deck the most logical thing to do any other alternative means will involve building structure and findings a place and transferring the person whatever they center to go it the cumbersome if i might address the deck was built 25 years by a general contractor and the folks didn't know that was properly permitted and of time and fixed it if there is a
3:19 am
problem, no more that is a completely legal deck on the on top of building we're available oh, off. >> we could glass that and probably make it more attractive if you want to ask me a question i'll show you things we worked up yesterday that is more expensive but we can do it. >> dr requesters rebuttal. >> thank you two points one if you look at exhibit 5 our submission that is not a commercial application for a lift that's a residential application for a lift and the second point if you look at exhibit one part of crossed off material says that application for a roof deck so that addresses the second point that
3:20 am
they didn't know they didn't center a permit. >> it's hopeful they're involved in the community the people that spoke on their behalf they're not effected but 5 families are one you haven't heard from neil smith couldn't be here because of his work schedule his letter reads as the owner of filbert street liking want to make it clear in addition to the promoted change to filbert to be inconsistent and contrary took to the cal hallow guidelines and setting a bad precedent for applications of our own planning standards for the future signed neil and regunmen smith and to reiterate
3:21 am
we've lived across into them for 12 years our living area look at the view and never once seen them on their roof thank you. >> living across the street from the folks i've never seen them on their deck it is pacific heights is cold it is windy and foggy we have a deck we don't use it i want to say that they don't use it; however, we don't have an objection to they're having a roof deck figure that's what we want but object to the assess they'll use to get there with their elevator box so again, i ask you to deny the elevator roof deck box and have let the
3:22 am
folks have a roof deck and that that's fine with another means of gaining assess thank you. >> okay. that concludes the public hearing and to commissioners comments commissioner vice president richards. >> question for project sponsor so that looks like judging from the commission packet the building permit history back in 1995, liam pull it up i had dog eastward somewhere saw is that the packet you were handed today and i believe that was - and let's see. >> we were not provided a copy of that i've not seen it. >> okay. >> it's an rdr. >> i figure the dr received 94
3:23 am
whatever was applied for increase in building permit and i guess it refers to the building permit application that is in the packet that shows the items scratched off and the question he that will be this here it is hard to read what was scratched off the question i'll have so it was a asserted by the dr requester this was on dental request as per the 1994 yet i see no plans to support that i also see here you, mr. ruben say the reason the commission denied it pending legislation but no minutes from that meeting to say there was an issue this was not the actual structure i get a double cancel and still
3:24 am
small business commission hocking smoking gun and a roof deck applied for and denied how did the roof deck get there. >> did that happen before the permit was applied for and remained or avenue and built without benefit of permit even though this was denied. >> i was handed not the smokinggun anymore it shows what was applied for in 95. >> i can hand it up so - >> so that i'd like to understand let's go back to the roof deck didn't seem to be in question. >> here's what i understand i haven't tracked this down, i suppose we can if you like us to we will a general contractor
3:25 am
retained to do general rooms that included a number of things including putting on a roof deck and so, so for some reason i don't know but the 1yk9 if workout and another one was substituted and there's a roof deck entered inserted by the time the roof deck was not approved in the set of plans maybe the contractor had a set of plans that was not approved that's what i believe happened extort going there to facts as given and what we've been told none knew that for 20 plus years until january of this year when was raised and we realized there was not a permit and sign off it was an impede but roof decks are
3:26 am
allowed and get it and we're here today with a legal roof deck. >> thank you i thank you very much. >> sure. >> one speaker made a good point and said permanently the use of roof was infrequent one but the solution they're proposing a assess to the roof deck is permanent that resonates with me perhaps an alternative means some type of of a list not on behalf of /* above it is less in i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> we didn't address the frequency or infrequency.
3:27 am
>> commissioner bobby wilson and have i 19 a couple of questions for the architect if you have a if the proposed roof plans that would be helpful. >> we what's that. >> go ahead. >> in my sense we struggled with this online street i recognize some did faces in the room i don't remember how i voted to a place where our at we had one structure up interest for an elevator no other structures for a stair penthouse or other means of egress up to the roof so in some sense this is consistent what i thought where we landed open lion street
3:28 am
so those who are filing the dr this is a code compliant project is that that is exceptional or extraordinary you've done a lot to minimize the impact on the roof and have what i think is the elevator cab but not having every roof in the city have an elevator penthouse but we have to balance and you've minimized that on roof plans if we can pop it up on the overhead. >> i have it. >> the way the roof deck it is that where the current roof deck or expanding in any way. >> let me check that. >> the rectangle roof deck is
3:29 am
what is there now. >> could you speak louder. >> i'm having a hard time picking up things. >> the rectangle roof deck i'll outlined with any pen this section is existing now the narrower section that leads to the elevator penthouse is the only new section and the elevator is 4 nature feet below. >> so when you open the door you're on the deck is there anything above you are you stepping outside into the deck. >> your stepping deregulation outside. >> what is surrounding the structure what's within the elevator no landing inside of the elevator or penthouse. >> it's the minimum code elevator cab surrounded by the
3:30 am
minimum closure with no - >> the railings around the deck what are those proposed to be. >> those are proposed to be 80 percent dark iron railings and discussed the option to do those in glass if this is of any interest. >> mr. ruben mentioned the possibility of doing a glass penthouse for the elevator cab can you show you that what many looks like a. >> yes. i can. >> what i'm showing on the
3:31 am
screen an all glass wall for the override the door is on the west side excuse me - sawed the actual shaft would be on the east side and sawed and all roof deck releasing will be glass everything above the roof will be glass except the shaft structure that is around the cab itself. >> okay. >> thank you i mean, i'm sympathetic to the neighbors concerns who filed the dr but what we've done in the past around the neighborhood and distinctive the context of the penthouse next door you know fourthly if fourthly if this is exceptional or extraordinary i be open to taking dr and requiring the glass closures but
3:32 am
hard to say this is what we've approved online street that is - kind of rises to some exceptional or extraordinary. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. >> thanks rich for taking half any comments i was going to reference the lion street project we went back and forth with the technologies and we're for the structural engineers 72 hours code compliant and our role to look at whether or not again, this particular structure on this project is exceptional or extraordinary and if so there are changes warned i don't think there are and commissioner vice president richards mentions no minutes from the meeting 20 years ago and that made 20 years into the future there's a reason
3:33 am
we're to the bound by past decision if we did we wouldn't be able to do anything but take into account the decision in 1995 but 95 but that doesn't preclude us from making a different decision today under a different context with the adjustments that the property owner has suggested when i looked at the plans not thinking of glass closure for the elevator penthouse but or even about the glass railing or for transparency i'm glad that was something that was produced in today's meeting many makes this project suitable not relevant how that how often they use their space self-i had a backyard i used to live in treasure island and more windy that if someone told me, you
3:34 am
can't have a barbecue pity wouldn't be happy that's innovate relevant to your review of this case and like to make a motion to take dr and the closure glass railing around the deck. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i like to remind myself of the lion street project and my own obligation to be fair and equitable we have taken a lot of neighborhoods throughout the city and flat locations and hilly locations east west south north and discussed this very issue and we have been very reluctant to approve elevators and stair
3:35 am
penthouses for the reasons won their maybe neighborhood guidelines that discourage the use of that and maybe neighbors options for reasons that vary over a large spectrum some of them were mental illness here larger properties i think this commission is given itself fair room to discuss the issues and want to pick up a couple of them glass elevators are very pretty, however, their commercial you see them in airport you see them in museums their lovely kind of looking into - >> into the intaurdz of a clock you see is machinery of a clock but a economical thing in
3:36 am
particular case the east and west wall for fire concerns mr. butler said you need to be followed and a north-south elevator seeing this lovely object sitting on top of the roof again the devil is in the details have to be custodian designed so the second point i like to raise is please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, butler's discussion about ada compliant those apply to commercial buildings only so the use of that word is misleading in
3:37 am
residential design guidelines you're following the california building code a voluntary - am i on track - >> thank you voluntary compliance to those rules that deal with accessibility so i'd like to distinguish we're not following the ada compliance in the designs and i believe is a way of dealing with accessibility in older age that is residential appropriate technology if lifts to whatever particularly whether those rooftop itself is not the primary reason for being outside and i'm requesting those applicants want to be on the
3:38 am
roof move on i'm not getting into that discussion. >> i'm have a problem with the extent of the deck we want to remind this commission that we have always held the deck away from sitting if property lines to property lines which makes the presence of the elevator from my perspective more difficult to consider the roof deck is formed something square feet is; is that correct that sounds large to me. >> what was that. >> over 4 hundred square feet of a roof deck that's huge i would just to keep the roof deck discussion on the tackle for a moment i'd like to pull the roof deck in from both sides east and west by 5 feet they sit off the property line and not on the
3:39 am
propelling with other joining properties he discourage considering a glass railing because i believe that they don't fit into the environment a custom fence or railing as you've discussed would be more appropriate to the overall expression of the building i'd like if i could come up one more time and project the daurz a point to .3 if you don't mind. >> would you mind project by project that image one time. >> a .2.3 that's the one a 3-d drawing and want to ask you a question. >> that's kind of following up on something that commissioner
3:40 am
hillis first asked you commissioner i'm on the wrong drawings that was the 3-d drawings i'm sorry. >> i don't know the number you know the last one you had that one to your left. >> and the adjoining building what is the rooftop top exclusion. >> that's an existing penthouse but large enough to be one. >> but you don't know what it is not air conditioning equipment encompassed, etc. we want to use that as a point of discussion i can't see it in google i don't know what is in it but have someone explain to me what is in there. >> i believe the woman with the white blouse to come up and
3:41 am
explain that. >> i'm sorry mr. butler have her explain it to us. >> i've been in that structure that is a gentleman that owns the entire building that is a penalty room where he has a desk and a couple of pieces of furniture not an elevator but a place for him to go and just be protected from the wind. >> i just wanted to know what the exclusion there are exclusions i want to think about so i want to step back the only thing to communicate to the commission pull the roof deck back from the property line on
3:42 am
other side. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> oh, i was going to say one thing in response to commissioner johnsons saying we're not bound by prior decisions i wouldn't have brought that up therefore if you want to justify a difference of opinion in a prior commission but for the right provide the notes from the meeting 20 years ago thank you for bringing it up. >> commissioner hillis. >> on the rail discussion and whether this is you know - i think i agree with you know the glass offers some transparency but they're not proposing it necessarily with flat units an iron rail and more consistent with the design of the home i
3:43 am
mean, i that that a glass rail i'll agree that us requiring a glass rail i'm okay either way it is fine the way it is proposed design wise with the home the notion of bringing them back 5 feet can you explain what is next building next door or what and where the adjacent structures are looking at from the site plan if we can see that. >> the adjacent structures let's start with the east side on the right that's a roof deck she's friendly and doesn't mind the roof decks close to one another and a solid parapet on that side i'm not sure. >> so the entire length of the
3:44 am
east side deck as a roof a structure with a roof deck on the other side. >> yes. it was added. >> what about the west side. >> a discussion it is right up against the other building not used by anyone i'm not sure it is a high impact revision. >> is it up against the structure or the building. >> i believe part of that against the structure and contrary the structure on the side. >> i'd like to address the glass railing comment and the glass elevator comment i've put a couple of glass elevators they're beautiful and the net transparency is compared to walls a big change from wall to glass can you spank louder. >> i've insulated glass elevators in - you have to
3:45 am
detail it and fire code issues but the effect is beautiful is remarkable in its difference if solidity more transparent and the glass is on two sides the comment the railing exists it is retroactively permitted it is up there now the interest in the glass railing from a design stand point we are responsible for the grass and the railing and the glass of elevator is a nice compliment could each other that's why that offer is made and goes in concert with the glass similarities. >> if we don't say it has to be glass or no glass they still
3:46 am
have to put if glass railings; is that correct. >> from the commission adds the glass railings as a condition of approval we wouldn't allow them to swap it out at a later time but if we didn't add that they'll have the flexibility the property lines there are - if done prove or disprove it is solidify but can be done there's been another project that mr. butler did that constituent that can be done unless conditioned to one or the other. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay i can make away the condition of the grass railing from my motion i added it in your renderings transparent or glass railing on the stairs in our revised
3:47 am
staircase but i'll takeaway that the project sponsor to continue to work with the staff on the detailing of both the elevator and the railing because i agree if you put in a glass elevator maybe consistent to put in glass railing but if you didn't would be out of context. >> jonas did you get that and one note on pulling 9 railing away from the property lines normally i can go along with the change it's not warned with the roof deck to another roof deck to the property lines and one not used on the other side i don't know what it gets us when i support that we're looking at rh1 and pushing back the roof deck give us more open space this is not doing that i'm not
3:48 am
seeing why that change wasn't what that would be in furtherance of this project. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask you - e - glass elevators with not typical for residential rooftops i want to make sure we're not creating any bird hazards we have birds underlying into glass on the including windows by adding a glass elevators a way to avoid that obviously glass elevators require significant higher amount of maintenance if they look bad they look bad to be treated like windows and i believe that if we are creating
3:49 am
like to express sauced on glass if we're starting to use glass elevators and glass railing i feel we're adding a feeling of an additional story that's why i think potentially using minimum required spacing on a railing in metal is a better way of it otherwise, it starts to become too much of a structure so that would be my thought because i heard you are more interested in glass on glass i'm more interested in glass and appropriately detailed and i mean, i on the motion was kind of not specifying materiality - >> not specifically material. >> including the elevator. >> yeah. not specifying i'll go along with commissioner moore. >> continue working with
3:50 am
staff. >> thank you our all right. >> thank you jonas. >> and continue working with staff to make the railing and elevator pads, you know, as minimal psa as possible maybe glass maybe not be i don't want to design it. >> understood. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> yes. question if it were glass comborsdz would it be bird proof glass. >> any roof deck railing for example if they went glass a bird material many ways to do that we've seen roof deck railings that are glass a special coating that meets all the birds standards mr. butler did it on other promotions. >> if he specify it is glass
3:51 am
i'll definitely support it. >> we get to hear from commissioner moore can you raise concerns about a glass elevators. >> i happen to know glass elevators we have solid walls an easier way to make the elevator less i am probation officer i'm still debating with myself my own consideration my level of consistency we are talking about stair elevator and penthouses that's a big, big issue i'm a strong possibility in this particular case a larger property and still question that the extents of the roof deck itself from property to property line toektd with the elevator is for me personally the right way of doing it how you contain
3:52 am
yourselves from others in my neighborhood people discuss holding the roof deck back as a issue of people for the jichlg from one roof to another it creates a feeling i shouldn't be walk on that the part of roof not relevant to this we have a bunch of questions. >> i think there is a motion that has been seconded shall i call the question? >> please. the motion to take dr and approve the project as proposed adding a condition that the project sponsor continue working with the staff on the detailing of the elevator and railing on that motion commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore no commissioner vice president richards no and commissioner president fong
3:53 am
so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to two with commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 18 ab potrero avenue discretionary review and the zoning administrator request for variances please note commissioners that on june 30th, 2016, after hearing and closing public comment this close session continues the matter by a vote of 5 to one with sxhoerm commissioner antonini voting against and commissioner president fong you were absent commissioner compare commissioner melgar and commissioner koppel not here for you to participate you'll have to say you've reviewed the previous hearing and prepared. >> yes. at the 11:30 this
3:54 am
morning. >> i wasable. >> and was also able to review the materials. >> without further ado. >> good afternoon fellow commissioners jeff the item before you of the prompted project an potrero the proposal a vertical and horizontal to add two additional units this was previously heard on june 2nd and continued to the project sponsor to continue working with the neighbors the residential design guidelines reviewed the project and the department if request further changes to the project the department supports the promoted each time as both options economy with the residential design guidelines since september 26th you've received the revised packet the planning commission has no additional comments and setbacks
3:55 am
along the northern property line a 3 story massing at the front and revised entry the staff finds that consistent with the neighborhood and recommends to take dr and this that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> sxhok that is the second time we're hearing this generally speaking we provide a reduced time 3 for the sponsor and 3 for dr requester and one public commenters. >> the dr requester comes first. >> i got to start our time yep go ahead you've got -
3:56 am
>> good afternoon the project sponsor has maids changes to his proposal removing others fourth floor from the front part of unoccupied buildings and removing the second story roof deck and changing the windows from fixed to orphanage and the evacuation for the 4 stories to 3 and a half above grade those result in a minimum result of 99 square feet to the area and added two feet to the setback, however, in an attempt to preserve the square footage he filled the space where the roof deck was there a containing a
3:57 am
bedroom and bath think each floor that eliminates the direct sunlight the home directly adjacent to the north through it reduces the - it adds to the area of the lopez home we appreciate he's efforts pardons attempt to preserve the habitable square footage didn't sufficiently mitigate the disadvantages to the family we feel this approach can be better used for the negative impacts therefore we request - page 2 of the indexesed handout we requested the fourth floor be
3:58 am
removed it will turn from 3 and a half stories to 2 stories above grade while reducing the habitable square footage by 5 hundred and 12 square feet project sponsor also seeks a variance from the front setback requirement the overwhelming parents pattern didn't support his request other houses have a 15 feet setback there is also an additional concern not raised to the level of the negative impact to the lopez home but it is important to me and i hope you consider this as well that is a 1906 that is basically intact in a historic block the majority of buildings were built
3:59 am
before 1890 and as not as important and secondcy to my concerns i'd like this to be considered thank you. >> speakers inform support of d requester. >> go ahead. >> yeah. i have to start the time. >> i'm sorry. >> sorry. >> hi, my name is marvin lopez live on potrero off next to the promoted project if you guys see some of the pictures that i have
4:00 am
for you guys about loans 10 years ago there was also a project on the other side of my house on leveling 40 this is just the aftermath of 9 years into what happened not a building that has big as you can see in the first four how much my building has gone down and how close to my sisters room not even as big as proposed we have 3 and a half stories in the back so in terms of any type of air i mean light that is needed to come 19 in is gone. >>