tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 8, 2018 3:00am-4:01am PST
use that land for whatever public purpose they had for it before. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm still -- i feel like -- and that's the analysis of the only options. i know in the case report, it sort of says that the staff looked at how else to achieve the goals of the settlement and one was to -- can you explain those again? it was unclear to me why there was a couple of options and you said it was unfeasible. if you can go through those options again. >> absolutely. the first option looked at was installing an extension of the staircase or the public sidewalk along copper alley to connect burnett avenue to greystone terrace. unfortunately again, the slope of the lot becomes a problem.
it would not only have to be a very interesting engineering solution that would need to be found to create that access, but you would also have to do this with additional agencies coming in. >> that is not a roadway, right? >> right. it's only a sidewalk. it's a pedestrian walkway. >> commissioner johnson: yes. >> and in addition, the connection had budget issues, liability issues. what were some of the other options that you had a question about? >> commissioner johnson: i think that was -- there were two on here. consideration all options on page 2. >> oh, right. the other option was allowing the -- connecting the driveway directly to the hoa's private driveway. that's part of the reason that the suit came about. it is a private driveway, not a public street. we don't have the ability to
mandate that. the hoa didn't want the connection to take place. they didn't want this particular property owner to connect his driveway to their private drive and on top of that even if they were not opposed to it the engineering with the slope to not have to cross over at least a portion of burnett avenue, paper street and sf huff puc parcel would have been very difficult to do, which leads to the third option, which would have been to only provide an easement on burnett avenue north and sf-puc. however, dpw has a financial requirement to their taxpayers to get the most fair value for their land and to cut a portion of this off would not be getting them that option because it would render the rest of the land unusable. so i cannot go into the specifics of that, because i'm
not dpw, but that's why it was told to us as not an option by sf-puc and dpw. >> commissioner johnson: so sf-puc and dpw are the reason we're rezoning rm1? >> well, the property owner needs access to their land and this seems to be the most feasible option. >> what about a swap of the current parcel well the puc parcel? i'm not trying to redo the settlement, but were things like that considered? >> many options were considered. it's the puc parcel. they must get maximum value. they cannot split a parcel and have a portion that's basically useless on the market. from the puc's perspective, if they're going to sell a surplus asset, they're going to sell it
at the highest value, which includes the dpw parcel being thrown in at the same time. when you have a larger parcel thrown together, it's a higher value. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm glad we got that clear. i think the piece that was missing for me is the reason that we cannot provide the easement, so i got it. >> and i should clarify, the reason why it's going to rezone technically, it's standard practice that the unzoned would take -- so it would transfer the property to the plaintiff in this case. and standard practice is that it would not remain public, or we would have to face this issue or rezone it. it is happening before or at the same time as the transfer. we would be going to the abutting zoning. >> commissioner johnson: thank
you. i'm just about ready to make a motion, but one last question. these things are challenging. we don't have too many of these, but we do sometimes have settlement deals, where there's a deal struck and then the last piece is, we've to make a decision which is not really a decision because they've made the decision for us, i guess. so -- my question is, was the planning department with the city attorney or -- >> we were referred this settlement the way we would any proposed zoning that was sponsored by a supervisor. so this proposed solution was provided to us as a proposed zoning map amendment. >> commissioner johnson: okay. >> kate stacy from the city attorney's office. if the commission wants to make recommendations of a different zoning designation for these
parcels that made sense to the commission, the commission could certainly recommend that the parcels be rezoned differently. i think the map that you saw there were other zoning designations in the area. it's like any rezoning. if the commission thought that some other rezoning was appropriate, you could certainly recommend that to the board of supervisors. >> commissioner johnson: yeah, i mean, if the whole purpose is just to provide easement, i wonder why can't we rezone it to p and -- it's already public, but owned by -- i guess that doesn't make sense. i take that back. what are the other options? >> again, the other options that were considered in the settlement, which are in the case report, just didn't seem nearly as feasible for what is
on the table. >> commissioner johnson: okay. >> does the settlement -- it's a large parcel that comes out of this, if you merge it. and does the settlement agreement address that at all? i could see wanting from a planning perspective to somehow configure the remaining lot that comes out of here and not kind of leave that up to future, you know, discretion of -- we don't have control over lot mergers. dpw does. in zoning, that's my concern. you end up -- i don't know what would be built on this. and maybe we could get at that more by a combination of zoning in the parcels that come out of this. and i don't know if the settlement agreement contemplates or just leaves it up to the future property owner what this parcel would look like. >> there is no requirement for
the property owner to subject plans for the three parcels if the settlement passes. i believe the only condition is that he cannot sell it as another isolated parcel, so we don't run into this problem in the future. but that's correct. if he were to apply for a parcel merger without a development application, that would not be seen by the planning commission, but because of the steep slope of the lot, at the bare minimum, it would go through a ceqa evaluation and general plan priorities would come to us and any development would be subject to at the bare minimum 311 notification. >> right. i don't know if i'm prepared to vote on this today. i would like to know more about the result of our zoning decision and what it could lead to. what we think logically it would
lead to. if you have a parcel that's zoned p in a pretty consistent 25x100-foot neighborhood, you kind of know what will happen. i don't know what's going to happen here. it's an odd lot. it's steeply sloping. probably would have the development on the burnett side, but i don't really know. and maybe you want to split it into two lots. it would be great to get -- i don't know if i can vote on this today. i don't quite have a firm handle on everything that's happening. >> through the chair, first of all, you either vote on this today or it goes directly to the board, because the 90-day time limit is over and they didn't express a willingness to hold off on it. and the other thing is, you could probably -- could probably be sub divided into three lots and then you would do three on each for that, in a more direct,
linear way. or you could merge the lots and it would be one per 800-square-foot lot area. >> and what would that be? >> again, the appellant's current parcel is 2,300 and the puc is 4,500. and the other, i don't have the -- >> you have some steep slope development. i think if we could get more information, it would make me more comfortable about being able to vote on this. >> commissioner richards: so, staff, 1/4 mile away at roosevelt and 17th, there's a
serpentine rock outcropping that's at a 60 degree angle. would that be a similar leap of faith that that could happen here? >> certainly in this zoning that's conceivable. it's very steeply sloped, but there are other places in the city that are steeply sloped that could be developed. it's a question 7 -- of the engineering solution. >> i see on our packets, january 24. >> yes, it must have been extended. you have until january 24. >> commissioner richards: i think i would like to find out what could be developed there. i've been getting a lot of communication with other neighbors and so it could come back and i want to understand
that. >> housing can be developed here. we know between 9 and 12 units of housing can be developed on this parcel. >> commissioner richards: sure. >> what more do you need to know more? >> president hillis: we're just getting that now. would you recommend a different configuration of the lot? on this side of burnett, there tends to be development on every lot. and on the other side, it's open space and twin peaks. i think the neighborhoods should understand what will happen, the ones on greystone right behind here. i don't think they should get -- it's not like it's going to be open space. i think we need to understand what that rm zoning can do on a lot like this. >> i have a chart if that makes anybody feel better. >> commissioner richards: maybe a little.
>> commissioner johnson: i was going to say, you were saying that the 60-day time is that -- >> i corrected myself. it's january 24. they did a 30-day extension. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i was going to say, then let the board decide. it's board-sponsored. planning legislation. theres wi s wits wit s wits wit settlement. we have talked about how the planning department was or was not involved in the process. if that's the deal that everyone has struck, i think we should go with that. and if we want to add anything to it, that's fine, like maybe a condition that, you know, lot merger be prevented or something. i don't know. i don't know what else we would need to hear. there's lawsuit, settlement, supervisor has sponsored
legislation. we should move it forward and not be a roadblock in the process. >> commissioner koppel: do you mind putting the zoning chart up again? >> absolutely. i will not be able to fit it all in one section, but i will move it around. this is for rm zoning. to start, you have the three dwelling units per lot or one per 800 square feet of lot area. that's all that's allowed as a maximum. for the minimum, you have a width of 25 feet and an area of 2, 500 square feet. for the basic ratio, not applicable here. and for the front setback requirements, based on the average of adjacent properties,
up to 15 feet or 15% of the lot. same thing for rear yard. it would be 45% of the lot depth, with some exception. for the usable open space requirement, it would be 100 square feet per unit. and, again, with exceptions there. and then for any other special requirements, we have -- there is limits on parking and parking facades and ebbing west real -- ebbi equestrian sites. >> and so even though it's "low density," it has higher density as opposed to rh2. so i'm leaning towards approving
rm1. if and when the appallent could look at lot merger, then maybe we could have them approve the stairwell or retrofit that. >> commissioner moore: the only question that comes to mind is that the lot merger makes a new parcel very, very large. it's almost four times as large as it was on the onset. wouldn't somebody make lot cuts, which would make sense given the development pattern that would be a win-win for everybody. by creating the large lot, the
value of the lot as far as -- undervalued, relative to what you do if you do it smartly. and in terms of equity, if i live in this neighborhood, i would ask for replotting of the entire thing, where everybody would win, including continuing the development pattern germane and clear, even from this very small map that's in front of us. you see the shapes of how buildings orient their size, etc.? that's a question that i would have to ask. there is no proposal to merge these lots or reconfigure the lots at this point. so they could do a lot of things. they could leave it as three separate lots as it is now. they could rearrange it to be in three different configurations that they're talking to to match
the pattern of the neighborhood or they could merge it for a larger development there. we don't know what the owner of the property is going to do with those lots. >> commissioner moore: by agreeing to the merging, we're abandoning the ability to influence outcome. >> you are not agreeing to a merging. you are only agreeing to a rezoning of it. at the end of this hearing, it's still three lots. >> we know there will be -- >> come on. >> the lots are unbuildable. the two lots to greystone terrace, cannot be built on. so they have to do something with them. >> commissioner moore: and that's when later on our own influence or the neighborhood's desires can be better expressed. >> correct. the lots would have to conform to the planning code and whatever is developed on there would go through neighborhood notification and go through ceqa
environmental review. >> commissioner moore: r2 would be more comfortable to me than rm. >> we could make -- there's a whole settlement agreement and i think we could make recommendations on how that's configured. it could be rm1, but divide it into -- if you look at the lots to the greystone side, it's as big as those two lots combined, which has massive buildings on them. it's fine. we want housing, but i don't know if i would want to see a development that's kind of that size on these two lots. i just want to understand what the planning rationale is. we're creating the biggest lot in this neighborhood by doing this, which makes me uneasy.
>> commissioner richards: i'm uneasy as well. whoever litigated this has a sliver or a pizza slice with nothing on it. they're leveraging the fact that they're land locked to get a huge lot to build a windfall development on and we have one probably 1/4 mile away that's contentious already. i would not support this unless we have a development pattern that exists in the neighborhood rather than creating this gargantuan lot. we'll have another roosevelt-17th on our hands. we'll be happy to do it when the d.r. arrives, which it will. >> commissioner koppel: aren't we trying to create the potential for developmentally dense housing? >> commissioner richards: we are, but i would be more
comfortable with density than a garr -- huge project. >> the board of supervisors can do what they want with this, but i think we owe it to the board and the neighbors to make that recommendation. i don't think i have enough information to make that. if we can get more information on the development potential and what we anticipate development to look like, and we can make a recommendation on just a little more -- it may not be taken. we can say, recommend this and divide it into two lots. that's not necessarily in zoning, but in the agreement. [please stand by]
until january 18th. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, that motion passes 4-3 with commissioners fong, johnson, koppel voting against. commissioners, that'll place us on item 12 tor 20181859-coa, at 2039 post street. >> good afternoon, i'm mary woods of department staff. the applicant is seeking a motion to allow a change of use from a grocery store to surgery center. it's currently located at 1635 divisadero street since 1989.
it's in a building containing about 13,000 square feet. the current proposal at 1336 post street is approximately 34,600 square feet on the ground floor of a six story mixed-use building. the proposal is also to reconfigure the existing 72 parking spaces to 87 parking spaces with 20 valet spaces. there's currently one loading space which would be maintained for ups or fedex deliveries during regular business hours from monday through friday only. the clinic is not open during the weekend. there are currently no bicycle spaces on-site. the proposal will propose nine bicycle spaces, five class one and four class two. the project is in a 130 foot e
high and boat district. the zoning for the site is nc-3, which requires cu for a changing use from grocery store to another use. since last week, staff has received one letter in support of the project, and one letter from a neighbor who had questions, which the sponsor had adequately addressed. the department's recommendation is to approve with conditions. this concludes my summary of the project and i'm available to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you, miss woods. project sponsor. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. jodi knight on above of reuben, junius and rose. as you know, the project proposes to make a use of a long vacant site for use avenue an ambulatory and surgery
center. it will provide increased services. there's a significant demand which you'll hear from the project sponsor who's here today, particularly for outpatient joint service. it has off street passenger loading, materials loading and sufficient garage parking. it's a clean and quiet use which is compatible with the residential uses above. we have had considerable support from the hoa, which really would like to see some use on the ground floor. there are security concerns about a vacant ground floor, but really has no interest in having a grocery store down there. regardless of the interest, there's been no market interest. this has been a long-vacant property. it's been marketed to a number of other uses and nobody else has wanted to move in, so this is really the perfect solution. i know we're here today because of the requirement for cu for
removal of a grocery store. there has not been a grocery store there for a long time, but i know that's an issue that's concern of the commission. there 14 grocery stores within one mile of the site, and i do have a map showing the four largest grocery store facilities within approximately a half mile, so you can see there's several large stores, and then, there's a number of smaller stores. but there are sufficient access to groceries in this area, and presidio administrator jessie scott is here to provide you some more information. the architect is also here today, and we're happy to take any questions. thank you. >> hi. i'm jessie. i'm the administrator of the surgery center, and i just
wanted to let you guys know a little bit about who we are and why we wanted to move. we currently have fife operating rooms and one procedure rooms, and we want to move desperate to seven surgery rooms and one procedure rooms. we are the only outpatient surgery center where patients can get that service in san francisco, and we are the first center of any kind, hospital or anything in california, to be recognized by the joint commission who awarded us advanced certification for total hip and knee replacement. the -- what we bring to the community is really a lower cost and higher quality alternative to a hospital, so i'm not sure if you have any questions about what we would be doing in there, but i'm happy to answer them. >> president hillis: we may. we're going to open it up to public comment first, and then, we'll ask you questions. >> okay. >> president hillis: is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners.
my name is mike o'cassidy. i just happened to be here listening to this. i believe i was in one of these rooms maybe two months ago, and i hope -- i hope you can see it's a great place. they do great work if you get messed up like i did, so i hope you approve the project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the only question i had, one, the capability was health service on a ground floor, which we considered and discussed at length a few weeks ago in other neighborhoods, the nonanimation factor of health care services on ground floor in general.
thirdly, the question of the capabili compatiblity with this site and those listed above. there's a concern of staff that there may be the potential of patients having to stay over night. thirdly, the disposal of surgery and medical waste, which is a concern, residential and medical waste because polls of that scale really are not compatible. vacating 13,000 square feet in what is currently a health care district around mt. zion and divisadero and now moving it close to cpmc which is a block over, and creating what we originally were very concerned
about, for lack of a better word, calling it pill hill. so i have these concerns, and particularly when it comes to the idea of combining medical services with residential ab e above. >> i know this site because when i worked with the city, i think we were trying to do with this -- i think it was calla there when it closed. it's an odd site, so i get the concern about having health care on a ground floor site, but i think here, it doesn't trouble me, given, you know, if you start going west from this site on post, there really isn't any additional commercial and it's a pretty sleepy street, as far as pedestrian activity. and given the hoa support i
saw, i'm in support of this place. i think it's a tough place to put back a grocery store or something like that in this space. i'm in support of this, and it seems to have the support of the hoa. commissioner koppel? >> i'm in support also. i see the franklins and vannesses that are going to be better travelled, that might be a better location of a grocery store, but due to the length of the vacancy and this spot, that it does have a potential tenant, i'm supportive. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to ask mr. lindsey or perhaps the director from the medical center to speak about waste disposal and to hear about what you're going to do to make it compatible with residential. >> we're what is considered a small waste generator by the city of san francisco, and we have permits for that. it is 95% sharps containers.
we contract with stericycle. we keeped them bagged up, and they come once a week and collect it. we have red bag waste. there's no radio activity. i know some of the neighbors had asked about that. >> how about your comment about overnight stay? that is something which concerned me a little bit because overnight stay in any kind of facility requires a different kind of back up and on-site provision of food services, etcetera. could you get into that a little bit? ? yeah. our licensing is for a 23 hour stay, so we can, by license, keep people up to 23 hours and 59 minutes. we do, right now, probably two or three nights a week, have patients that stay over for extended recovery. that might grow a little bit, and what we do, we have a food
handling service, and we bring in all the food for those patients, so there's not food kept on-site or bringing rats or anything like that. we go on lockdown at 9:00, and there's a security guard, which was actually a plus for the neighborhood, and obviously, if we do have people that are sleeping over, they are recovering from surgery, so we want it quiet, we want it peaceful for them, certainly not any noise or... >> commissioner moore: have you undertaken any measures for facade maneuvering because we all know those sizes do not do have a very street friendly experience. >> the grocery store had frosted glass. right now, it looks like painted windows. if you have questions, the architect is here. we're making sure that the lobby that faces all of those windows is kind of a livly
lobby that fits the city. we're asking for something that doesn't look quite so medical. i want something that would feel like it's a younger, vibrant city. we want a tech look. some people plug in, plug in their laptops while they're waiting on their procedure. like, if you walk by, some people are working. >> perhaps the architect could briefly explain it to the commission with some pictures, if you can. >> yes. the existing windows across the front of the building on post street will remain. we have a 25-feet-deep lobby and reception area that meets the active use requirement. it would also have high ceilings, and that's -- westbound we're not changing the exterior of the building. the existing entrance, we're reusing, and it's inside the parking area, so there's no direct access from post street,
and that's how we would activate the use along post street. >> commissioner moore: okay. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional comments or a motion? commissioner richards? richard richar >> vice president richards: motion to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners, on that motion and second. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 13 fosh case number 2016000310, stanyan street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. brittany van dixon, planning
staff. [ inaudible ] at 1010 stanyan. the residential building will contain three three-bedroom units and one one bedroom unit, ranging from approximately 1,300 square feet to 1180 square feet. the project also includes eight class one bicycle spaces, four of which will substitute for the required off street parking spaces. this principle rounding up remaining fractions of one half or more. upon completion of the active tentative map application, the property will have an area of 3,900 square feet and is therefore seeking approval of four dwelling units. so this publication of the staff report, the department has received one phone call in opposition to the proposal, requesting that the commission not approve any units at the
site, given existing congestion in coal valley. the department is recommending the planning commission approve the proposal as it's necessary for the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole. the massing and design is -- and the city's bicycle and pedestrian networks, and the project adds for dwelling units and 11 bedrooms to the city's housing stock. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss bendix. project sponsor, welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good to see you all.
commissioner johnson, thank you so much for your service, and for the little that i've worked with you, it's certainly been a pleasure. i would like to present this project at 1010 stanyan street. we're here because we're looking for conditional use authorization for adding an additional unit to an rh-3 lot, which is in section 209, table 209 that allows 1,000 square feet for each lot area. the ground floor has one fully accessible unit that's a flat three bedrooms 2.5 bath. the second unit, also a flat with three bedrooms, and then, the third and fourth floor are two town houses, one front, one back, the front one with three bedrooms, and the back one with two bedrooms. right now, these are fairly sizeable lots typical to the 25 foot wide. this is currently a 37.5 lot. we're looking to make it
39 feet, and the project is not including parking, so given its proximity to the line which was a stop right at the corner one house away, and there are a number of bus lines within one or two blocks of the project. without the parking, there is a historic -- there's a historic stonewall along the street, so this is a view of existing on the left and proposed on the right. there is, along the street, there's an old stonewall that was related to the corner house at 199 karl, so by not having parking and cutting through there, we're not creating a problem for traffic on stanyan, as well as we can keep the mature trees -- the street trees that are there. so in terms of the conditional use about the finding, number
one, the finding is about the project is necessary and desirable for the neighborhood. we believe it does. it adds four new residential units where there are none, so of course there is no displacement. the mass and the form and the use is both consistent with the neighborhood and -- and the local context. the second cu finding about -- that the use will not be detrimental to the facility, again, the proposed form and size of the building is very much context well. accessiblity and traffic patterns, this is a well-served site, so by adding the bicycle spaces and expecting the owners to use transit is a very appropriate use on this -- on this lot. the third finding is that the
is project is -- it meets all applicable codes, and it certainly supports the master plan, so as you can see here, i mean, in terms of set backs and all of the typical requirements for this kind of project in an rh-3 zone, it's absolutely compatible. these are additional views. we're getting a little bit -- the upper west is just head on. there's the food store across the street, so this is essentially what it would look like from across the street, and then the one on the right, looking down the street from up the hill. you see that three-quarter view. there was one concern that i heard from one of the commissioners will the privacy issues on the sides. these are independent freestanding homes, so there's space between them. the house on the corner is a beautiful, quite historic house, and it has a bay window that faces that side, and the
common stair goes up that side. so -- so this elevation here, those windows that i just pointed to are that stair, and we're planning to have translucent or some kind of a frosted glass there so -- because it would look into that bay, so trying to create the sense of privacy between the two sides. so we believe that this -- the cu should be granted. we think it meets all the requirements, and provides a very good new four-unit building for the community. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll open this item up for public comments. any public comments on 1010 stanyan? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner richards richards
richard move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion to approve that has been seconded with conditions. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item number 14 for case number 2017-00592, cua 49 saturn street. this is a conditional status. >> commissioner richards let us know that he needs to recuse himself, so i'd like to recuse commissioner richards from this it item. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners on that motion to recuse commissioner richards. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. you are here by recused.
>> good afternoon, president hillis, members of the commission. jeff horn, planning department staff presenting case 20170059200 cua. item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code 303 to convert a new -- or to construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot. the subject property is located on the north side of saturn street within corona heights neighborhood. it's a steeply sloping lot with an average depth of 56.5 feet. the site is currently vacant, and the site is located within the presidential house two story zoning district, and the corona heights large residence special use district. the project proposed to execute the lower portion of the lot and construct a new 39 foot
tall 3,774 fair foot single-family dwelling on the lot. the project proposed 2,741 square feet of living space, and a 396 square foot roof deck. the project is located within the boundaries of the corona heights large special use district. -- provide thorough assessment of proposed large scale residences that could adversely impact the area and affordable housing opportunities to meet the goals. the sud requires conditional use authorization for five types of projects, and the proposed project exceeds two of these development standards, there by require conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 249.77(d) 1 for residential development of a vacant property that will
result in a total gross floor area exceeding 2,000 square feet. no comments have been received on the project at the time of the publishing of the staff report. since the december 14th publishing, the department has received five letters and e-mail in response to the sponsors proposed project, including the corona height neighbors. staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization to allow the construction of a new 3,073 square foot single-family dwelling pursuant to planning code section 249 and section 303. with that said, department is recommending approval with conditions because the project will develop a vacant lot and a
proposed family sized dwelling unit, and the proposed dwelling will be in similar height and massing. it will not be in obstruction of any neighboring properties. this concludes the presentation. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. back again, jodi knight of reuben, junius and rose, the project sponsor. we're here -- it's undersized and even troply -- tropsteeply sloped. what we've tried to do is come up with a project that would work with the size and shape of
the lot to exist you today. to orient you -- i know you're familiar with the project, but -- could i have the overhead, please. you can see the -- sorry, the pictures are a little small, but you can see it's this small, overgrown lot right here. it's extremely steeply sloped. there's a blind wall next door, and then, the house on the other side is much further up the slope. again, here, you can see the lot. because of the line of the street, there's a line of a development here, but this lot is much smaller than the adjacent lots, which is one of the things that makes it difficult to develop. here, you can see a rendering of the proposed project. the street views, but particularly helpful to see what the project will look like
is this view from above. you can see there's a basement level and above that three levels, creating a family sized home, three bedrooms. because of the steep slope and the lower levels, there's no natural light from the rear, and so the only natural light comes from -- comes from the front. the open space is very limited, again, because of the slope, so you can see there's a small rear patio that's proposed, and then, a roof deck. the living space is about 2500 square feet, which, again, i know we've talked a lot about what's a family sized home. to us, that's reasonable for a family that allows for three bedrooms. and again, for the open space that's been proposed as part of the project.
just running quickly through the plans. i know you guys have a lot of projects in front of you, so you can see there's a small basement with a parking and bike parking. there's a lower level bedroom and bathroom. again, you can see that -- the relatively small size of the floors, again, because of the small nature of the -- of the lot and because of the slope of the property. here, you can see the second and third floor plans. second floor contains the other bedrooms for the family, and then, the third floor plan has the living space. at the rear on the third floor plan is the only real open space that's on the level as living space, and that's just because of the difficulties of excavating the site.
and then, finally, the roof plan, you can see. and the roof -- the roof space that's proposed is because that's really the only sizeable open space that's provided as part of the project. it's been pulled in from all sides. i know we've heard that chloron a lot of projects, but that's what's desired by the commission. and again, that would be sort of the larger open space of the project because of the difficulty of the lot. because of the slope of the property and the diagonal cut of the street, there's really impact on surrounding buildings. the building at the rear is only 13 feet above grade because of the slope, so it's really kind of an unusual feature, which we think makes this a completely appropriate project in terms of the
envelope. and so addressing the issue, again, that's been a significant issue for the commission maximizing density in new construction. we've heard that loud and clear, we heard that today. there has been this discussion about what is a usable single-family home, and this is an issue that we've looked at in this project and really studied the possibility of adding two units to the lot. but given the constraints of this lot, this isn't a project -- a place where this is feasible. and just to walk you through that, if you -- you can't -- you could not really have town houses because of the small nature of the lot. if you looked at stacking units, you would have essentially a lower unit of approximately 600 square feet that would have no natural light from the rear of the property. it would only have natural light from the front. it wouldn't have any open space that was provided at that level. the only possibility is to have shared open space that would be
up a stair and then shared open space with the next level above. you would then have two levels above that would be approximately 1600 square feet. you could really only fit two bedrooms, and so then you are getting into not having a family sized unit, and the open space at the living level would be shared with the unit below. in addition to the small size of the spaces, you would lose a lot of space to circulation, and so you would take, you know, 2500 square feet of living space, which is a reasonable amount of living space, and lose from that just a lot of wasted space for circulation. in addition, for the extra unit, you would need to build a larger garage which would require significant excavation, so you're going from a project not feasible economically, to then having to do large excavation which is another major burden on the project.
this project was additionally proposed to be four levels. staff directed the project sponsor to remove one of the levels which would have been one of the things that allowed an additional bedroom on that top level. given the -- the decrease in the envelope, we're at a point where it's a single-family home that's the possible and the desirable construction here. you know, we take the commission's comments seriously about maximizing density, but this project which is 2500 square feet of space on a substandard lot with limited light and limited open space is really not the place to try to look at those two units. and so we ask you to approve a project that will really make beneficial use of the overgrown eye sore of a lot, and we ask for your support today. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss knight.
we'll open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public that would like to speak on 48 saturn? >> hi. so my name is jim shea. i am the owner and resident next door at 117 lower terrace. i'm here today to oppose the project in its current form. what i don't oppose is development of that lot. as a matter of fact, i think every usable lot should be developed. i am one of the ones who would like to see it developed to its maximum potential. it's zoned for two units, rh 2, and i think that's what it should be. i heard the project sponsor he enumerate the reasons why that wouldn't be the optimal use of the lot, and i understand that, but -- in fact, one thing she said is not true. the lot's difficulties made it
not developed, that was not the case. my former neighbor did not sell it until recently, and it's covered with lovely trees. i knwill miss those trees, but know it's going to get developed eventually. i do support development, but not an almost 3,000 square foot home, and it would not support the neighborhood, which is two bedroom homes. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, good evening. i live at 60 lower terrace, which is literally about 200 feet from the property. it doesn't have a direct impact on me, so that's not the issue. i'm also on the board of the corporate heights association and hopefully you see their letter to you, specifically we're calling out the fact that there's a violation of the
special use district and there's a violation of gross floor area, so this organization supported that, so i'm hoping that you will fulfill the intent of that and council's or the brs's approval of that. the main issue, i agree, i live very close to the property, and it is not an eyesore. that is a gross miss calculation of that slope. we're not opposing construction there. we do think that two units could work there, and i urge you to send this proposal back, requesting a two unit design so you can judge appropriately. we all want more units in the city. it's important, to let's take a close look at that. and on a personal level, my house, just around the corner is about that set -- that size of the proposed structure, and i have a family of three, and you know what? it's big enough for one family. it's not a hardship. it's very doable.
so either shrink the design to a single-family or have a serious proposal for two units. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners, again. my name is mike o'cassidy. i'm a visitor. i built two two-unit buildings at 56 and 58 lower terrace which is just a little bit up the street from this site. a lot easier to build on that lot because you have relatively level lot likely. this lot here, it's great. we fought as years for builders to get more units in buildings, and nobody wanted to listen. now it's a policy. it's great. but it's kind of very hard to be genuine about what -- like this man said, the neighbor, if he wants to
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on