Five in density. The project was revised we were instructed to get a 11 where two floors were one unit and two floors were another unit and we achieved that. The Square Footage is her closer , they are not 11, it is 15322208. The second floor which is the streetlevel floor was altered. So this floor was previously part of the upper unit and it is now part of the lower unit. There is a kitchen, living, and dining space in the rear portion of this level. The entry, which is on sidewalk, as part of the upper unit, it is why the upper unit has more Square Footage then the lower unit. The lower floor was altered from a onebedroom layout to a two bedroom layout with an office. Those are the changes to the project. Okay. You have 15 seconds. Fifteen seconds, all right. Good evening. What you will hear a lot about tonight his parking. We did try to cut a deal. We were unsuccessful. I am continuing to continue in that spirit. Thank you. Okay. We will now take Public Comment on this item. I dont have any speaker cards, but i believe there are some commenters. Good afternoon, my name is michelle scott. My office represents the owners of 2036 and many others on the terrace. My clients possess easement rights, which the project would lawfully disrupt. We cemented a brief yesterday on this topic. Currently, it consists of 11 buildings are 22 units and 13 substandard Parking Spaces. Parking occurs on the west side wall neighbors enjoy ingress and egress on the east side. It dead ends on the southern end for the last several decades, parking has been on a firstcome , first served basis with no assigned parking. Age Property Owner possesses two parking passes, which allowed them to access the 13 spaces. All owners and residents have followed that parking agreement since its inception. Parking space eight sits immediately in front of 45. The project seeks to remove parking space eight and parking space nine. Your time is up. It is one minute. It is a second time you hearing the this item. Sorry about that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. You will have one minute. Im jennifer, i live at 46 and 50. I have three little girls. Basically i think what was not considered in terms of this project is how large an out of character this project is. It is directly across the street from me and it looks directly into my bedroom, my living room, as well as the roof deck. When it was originally designed, supposed to be for the family that lived there and now it is the developer. It has basically been made two units, and it is still only four bedrooms. The original building is streetlevel and it is four bedrooms. It is still only four bedrooms and we are completely losing our Affordable Housing and making two lesser units, and completely changing the character of the street were my kids play. We are a strong neighborhood. It is like a culdesac where we are work all work together. Mr. Eastwood has not been working with us in terms of trying to negotiate our parking solution. He has actually asked for more rather than less, and made it difficult for us to work together. I am concerned about the privacy , im concerned about the light, they are removing western light thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I am the owner of number 20 on the street. I happened to be one of the lucky few that will not be affected. My property is sitting at a much higher street elevation and far enough from the obstruction, but three homes will suffer greatly the consequences of these propositions. Jennifer, who just spoke, stands to lose the most. The project will cause lots of loss of light and complete obliteration of her views. We are hoping this commission will be able to try and see to it that the damages to the views and the Emotional Distress can be kept at a minimum. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I may permit consultants. I want to thank everyone for the attempt to work it out. That was the way to resolve it, it didnt get resolved. This is a private street just wide enough for cars. Due to a very delicate balance, parking has been allowed on one side for 13 spaces to deal with 13 cars, to get them off the street. If the garage goes forward, most likely it will revert back to a street, no parking, so yes, one car will be taken off the street with a one car private garage, but this point, the delicate balance will blow up and nobody will be parking here. You will end up with one less car, and 13 more cars. It is a delicate balance of this street is altered. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. I am james carter. Into the mic so we get and get so we can get it on record. It is right in front of you. Can you hear me now . Thank you. My wife and i bought a house on culebra terrace in the early seventies and i am an attorney. I am the only attorney who owned property there, so whenever issues came up involving parking or other matters, people on culebra would come to me, and i would act as an ombudsman in part a consultant, and an attorney, whatever. We had an agreement when i came there that all parking would be available to anyone on the street who did not have reserve we did not have reserved spaces. We had spaces and we had cards that we handed out. That has worked for many years. The neighbors wanted to park there, and in many cases, i became involved or we wrote letters saying that the parking here is now established by historical precedent. No one can change that. Thank you, your time is up. Im sorry . Your time is up. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner fung . Question for staff. There was nothing in the brief that explained why they are extending beyond the required the required rear yard Property Line. That was part of the variance findings which typically arent included. I understand it is a variance , but not according to the conditional use. They are part of the variance findings, they are included when we issue our variance decision letter, but not necessarily it is nothing that is related to the conditional use. Mr. Teague . Just respond briefly, generally whenever we have projects come to the Planning Commission that also require a variance, the staff report does not work provide recommendations on the variance itself because we do not do stuff requirements to other variances. The project sponsor often will explain why they are proposing the portions of their project that requires the variance, and then the departments recommendation is looking at the project as a whole. I guess the question is, because we are looking at this project in its entirety. And part of this project extends over the required Property Line. The rear yard line, yes. I guess if the project sponsor would like to provide an explanation as to why they feel that they should be allowed to go with this design im willing to hear it at this point. Can somebody from i think we are talking about the rear yard, the rear setback. Yeah. The building, just to be clear, does not extend over any Property Lines. I just want to state that. Im sorry, it requires a setback. A rear yard intrusion. The project is requesting a 26 inch intrusion into the rear yard and the reasons have to do with the site layout in terms of where the front Property Line is relative to the street and the rightofway, and the usual conditions of this particular lot that for shortens a developable area for building. The adjacent building was approved to a 15foot rear yard and the project seeks to align itself to that building and it has mass, it has height. Those are the reasons. Thank you. Commissioner richards . The question for mr. Carter. Mr. Carter . So if this building had no parking and two cars, how would you handle this . I dont understand the question. Lets assume we approve the building with no garage, but people move in with two cars. Two new cars. If the building were permitted. Talk into the microphone, please. If they were permitted to have a garage, then. No garage. No garage, they would park on the street as we have historically parked. So it is firstcome first serve . Yes. If you have a plaque route that since of 13 persons authorized to park, then owners of this building would have one of those okay. And they can park each unit would get one . They would get two because you can use us to park any place sure. So what you are saying is because of what im hearing is because of the addition of the garage and the curb cut of 0 feet, it is going to reduce because there is a spot in front of the house now that you could fit a car, im sure we could fit a car somewhere in the front. If they do the curb cut, it is 10 feet. What you are saying is it curved tales from another spot, a potential spot, that it creates a substandard spot. They had if they two cars, they could but one in the garage , and one right in front of the driveway of their house. That could be the arrangement. The street is so narrow that parking takes up half of it. When a car is parked parallel to the curb, it takes up about half the street. Other cars can pull up to the left and pass it to come to a better place, but if they get their wish here, it would take out two parking his places Parking Spaces. Theres parking on that side of the street now. Yeah. I dont know what the standard length of a parking space is, some places they are in the city, they are shrinking it. Is it 18 feet . About 18 feet. So if the garage with was 10 feet, so if the garage with was 10 feet, youre not putting in a garage doors with a graduated curb cut, and if somebody pulled in the garage but still parked in front on the driveway, right in front of that garage opening or that driveway, that wouldnt work . Do you think that would work given the amount of linear feet you have . All i can suggest is that if they have a garage with a car, park in that garage. That would take away a parking place in front of the garage. Okay. You are right, it will. We would like a ruling that they cannot gain a parking place i can tell you from historical background that the owners of that building have sat in for many years about discussions about parking rights and they never complained about it because they were one of many persons of these owners now great. They want to add value. I understand that, so did the owners of the current building that is proposed to be demolished have a placard . The people that live in the little house now that we are going to demolish, do they have a card . Yes. And they had a placard . Yes, they have two placards. Because it was two units . They have two placards so permit them to park in any of the open spaces on culebra terrace. Okay. Im struggling with there two cars there now that have placards, the house goes away, two new cars show up with hopefully one placard because one goes in the garage and you still have one on the street, isnt that better than what you have now . You have one less demand for a spot. Im sorry i dont understand your question. Mr. Teague, did you want to shed light . Im looking at this as the neighborhood is gaining because you have one less demand for a parking space and you still have a parking space created in the driveway of the home that actually has a garage so they can parked parallel. We can have an agreement where the owner parks parallel to his own house in front of his own driveway. If i may work back from it go ahead. Right now you pull up culebra , on the right side there are certain number of parking places. If they get approval to build with a garage, that takes out one of the available parking places. I understand that. That demolition of the parking space i understand that. But the existing condition is that there are still two medallions for the houses being demolished. Im struggling with trying to understand whether this is a better thing or a worse thing. And im coming up with it being a better thing. We cant have public discussion like this. Im sorry. The issue here is that it is not assigned Parking Spaces. There firstcome, firstserved as i understand it. You cant have that spot that is in front of that garage be assigned to that house only. It would then assign the assigned that only two that house and it would up and the system, which is firstcome first serve. Did you want to Say Something . I did have a couple quick questions for mr. Scott who submitted the brief. A couple quick questions if you dont mind. And the brief that you submitted , you said that there are three private garages on the street and that every property gets two placards. Thats right. Are they the properties that also have the offStreet Parking and they also get two on street placards . They do. As i mentioned, the lenders, for example, they dont use the garage to park their car in because it is just challenging to gain entry into that garage so they park on the street. It is storage for them, essentially. It was also described that there is no former Homeowners Association here. There is no formal Organization Running the show here. It has been an informal agreement process. Thats correct. I wish there was. One of the items in the brief was a warning notice for being towed. But theres no identification. If i parked there and got in my car, i would not who i would not know who put it there. I happen to know that the gentleman sitting right there with the glasses on his head created those. He often times will put those on cars or verbally inform folks who are not residents that they cannot park in those spots. Obviously there is a formal easement here for the access, but theres not anything in the easement relative to the parking it has been a separate agreement , kind of a friend the agreement between Property Owners that was produced in the early to thousands. I dont know if it was further cemented in the early to thousands, what you are right, there is no express easement that was given by virtue of an executed document. As i mentioned, easements are created in a variety of ways, you know, implication, necessity , prescription, a stop, and a court order based on the totality of the circumstances. The position is there is a legally protected easement right on that issue, which all owners possess equally. And it is a legally protected right. It cant be disrupted without all owners agreeing to that disruption. Thank you. I appreciate it. Commissioner moore . Would you be so kind to help us with just the numerical accounting in response to the question that commissioner richards asks . If there is a garage, the driveway is 10 feet. Yes. It has they curb cut with the flair for the product for the car to get in. We have enough with on the street for a proper tight movement of a car into the garage where we park one car in the garage as an obligation . Will you be able to impose of the second car should have a second space and parks in the driveway itself . It is going to be very tough for the car in the garage to come out. There is a garage directly across the way by this party. You cant use her garage because the street is so narrow that if someone is parking in the space directly in front of the project sponsor, you cant get out of the garage. If the current proposed garage will probably require someone to drive over the sidewalk to get out. It is a very narrow street. They are squeezing in 13 spaces to get 13 spaces off. This will upset the balance of that. Most likely all the Parking Spaces will go away. No one is telling me this. I know how it will play out. Ones there is a car space there, it will be very difficult to maintain that. Somebody gets to drive on someone elses property to drive into their private driveway and to park into the common street. It is just going to revert back to a street. Then people will be able to use their garages, and we will have a net increase of 13 cars. So the idea is to leave it alone or youll get a bunch more cars in the street. Thank you. I want to toss this question back to mr. Teague. We apparently have the street, and i dont know when the street was established. It has a certain right of way. We also have garages on the street. For whatever reasons, these garages dont seem to be workable because of the manoeuvrability of cars does not make it possible to get cars into this garage. Why would we even consider why would the department consider entertaining the idea of the garage when we dont have the capability of turning . The first point is that i dont this isnt a public rightofway. This is a easement that was subdivided. That is one reason that it is a narrow configuration that it is and we have this self regulated parking system that we have instead of a typical public rightofway with Standard City parking. I dont know what level or degree we analysed the turning radius for pulling in here. Having said that, the width of the street is not narrower than other public streets that we see while tight, it often accommodates garages as long as they have adequate wit to do so. Im not sure if that analysis would have been necessary. Can i ask, what side of the street is the Street Parking on today . Is it on the side of this project . I think that is the reason why the house the houses across the street have a harder time because their cars are parked on the opposite side of the street. So they cant take advantage of the full width of the street to manoeuvre, whereas this property could take advantage of the full width of the street to manoeuvre into the garage. There is a larger turning radius commissioner richards . But if this house is going to be demolished, this one here has no garage. Theres still a car parked in front of it today so im struggling with what the issue is. Here we have garage, garage, garage, garage, there are at least eight buildings five of them have garages and they all get a medallion to park on the street. It feels like the people and how any of the garages are used . None of them . Zero. Okay. Commissioner fung . Part of this issue of an informal or in the opinion of some of the people that they have a pretty that have a prescriptive easement i see no reason why it goes over the setback line. If you look at the spaces that they are planning, there is no reason except for them squeezing extra footage out of it. Im not supportive of the project as it is currently constituted. I am still concerned that the project is building into an environment where is apparently proved that the garages dont work. The community has not established a pattern where your alternate with people who have garage doors and who dont, which makes it difficult on a narrow street, but there are streets and communities where you have narrow streets in your alternate your way through what is available. There is nobody who has talked about it, so i have to assume that they are suggesting a garage here is somewhat counterproductive to the common sense of what the community should be basically all agreeing with each other. It is kind of like if you want to live on this narrow street, you have to basically buy into some kind of common rules of operation. At this moment, i dont feel i am really there. Unless somebody else wants to step back and consider a joint packet strategy which allows everybody to participate with those medallions on the benefits of that. Thank you. I am wondering if you really need a garage. I mean i wonder if you make that buildable space and you dont need the 2foot 2inch encroachment in the garage if you design it that way, but i am also very reluctant to upend a neighborhood system for parking. Did you want to Say Something, mr. Eastwood . I just had a couple quick responses. The first one is i did propose parking without the garage. We talked about that a little bit outside of the hall last week or last month, and i asked for a space in front, deeded to me, and i asked for one roving parking parking permit. Is that i will build these two units and i will give one a guaranteed spot in front of the house and the second one can have the roving spot that everybody else has. I backtracked a little bit and thought, this garage thing is actually a net improvement. I am adding a parking space, so i kind of stayed with that one they wouldnt agree to me getting the two Parking Spaces. We havent found Common Ground around parking. In terms of the 2foot 2inch easement, our property is in the middle of the street. We have given up 15 feet of building mass that we would have havent any other conventional lot. That is why we are asking for that. No reason other than that. Questions . I am not following your logic , but thats okay. Mr. Teague . I just want to quickly address the rear of the building a little bit just to provide a little bit more information. As you all know, the code allows the front and the rearview to do bay windows. We allow you to do larger bay windows with smaller setbacks from Property Lines in the rear. You can go 3 feet deep. The project has proposed, instead of doing the rear building wall at the rear yard line and then going to two pretty large projected bay windows and go 3 feet deep into the rear yard, they have just taken the entire rear building wall and gone 2 feet left. The result is an equivalent mass i havent done an exact calculation, but it is pretty equivalent without projecting in any spot more then the 2 feet. They are proposing a variance, but it is a variance that from a perspective, is less impactful than what they could do under the code with two large bay windows in the rear. If youd prefer not to have it go into the rear yard with bay windows, that would be an option , as well, but i wanted to provide that context. Commissioner moore . I personally would suggest that we ask the applicant to work on an agreement with the neighbors. I cant understand why granting a dedicated space is really not in the spirit of the street, has never been. But that is for them to decide. That is holding us up. I think they have made an effort in creating an equitable unit, but i believe that that should be done without a garage and based on a mutually agreeable on street arrangement of whichever way they want to do it. Is that a motion . It is a motion to continue. With the encouragement for them to work on an agreement. The building itself is acceptable the garage. Is there a way that we could i wonder if theres a way you could approve it without the garage unless they come to an agreement. That is so hard to watch for us. Okay. [laughter] we wanted to be over. [laughter] there is a motion to continue yes. I will second. Commissioner richards . I just have to go on record saying, while on earth would you put garages and buildings where you cant use them . Seriously . It makes no sense. So why would the project sponsor be putting one in, why would a lot of other people have them . I see them in photos. His anybody not a resident seen anyone go in and out of the garage . We have had aladdin terrace, which was 7 feet wide, and they were garages there and people were able to get in and out. How wide is the street . Im flummoxed that there garages there are garages and places that were put were people knew they couldnt use them. I moved to approve the project as is. I think there is a motion to continue. There was no second. It has not been seconded. I will second it. I second the motion. Very good. The motion has is to continue and takes precedent as a procedural matter so we will take up that matter first. The date to continue will be august 22nd. Very good. Commissioners, on that motion to continue to august 22nd. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes 42. Zoning administrator . I will also continue the variance hearing to the set date very good. That will places under your discretionary review calendar items 14 a and 14 b. You will consider the discretionary review for 3847 384,918th 38473849, 19th street. You continued this matter to july 18th by vote of 50. In order to participate today, you need to we have reviewed the materials. Thank you. As this is the second time youre hearing this matter, time will be reduced to three minutes or presentation three minutes for presentation, one minute for Public Comment, and no rebuttal. If anyone here is here for item 15, that matter has been cancelled for today. Good afternoon, commissioners i am before you for a continuance for discretionary review request. Part of the request for the continuance was for planning staff to meet with d. B. I. To review the plans and do a site inspection. I would first like to have the senior building inspector come up and he would like to give a presentation on the research that was conducted on the property permit and violation history at the site. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I have a bunch of printed out special inspection notes i believe that were requested for all the special inspections. If you folks would care to go through them. I will keep one and give you the rest. Thank you. Thanks. There is my agenda here. That represents the property as it was. This is as it exists today. So ten Building Permits have been issued since september 2014 six of the ten involve structural work. The required engineering certification letters were submitted and demonstrate compliance with 54 required engineering criteria. It is a special inspection, it is documented on the six permits nine Building Permits have been completed by d. B. I. Since october of 2017. Two additional permits have been filed and are not yet issued. The filed permits document the as built site conditions. Twenty Building Inspections were performed by building inspectors , nine of the inspections were final inspections, electrical, planning planning plumbing inspectors. We applied again at the time of completion. D. P. W. Were part of the approval process for this project. Six site visits were made by building inspectors for the investigation of the complaints that were filed since july 2016. Here is the complaints. Right now we have one in housing , and one with the building department. That was the latest one after our walk through with planning. Eight complaints have been filed with the building Inspection Division. One notice of violation existed to document the work performed beyond the scope of the approved permits. Building Inspection Division notice of violation resulted from a site visit may 20th, 2019, where it became apparent that even the combination of issued permits did not document the actual as built conditions. Previously, they were either closed based on duplicity, lack of merit of knowing permit or permits were issued to document compliance. Special inspection is a requirement for an engineer of record who are certified testing agencies to provide a final letter of certification for structural work. That is all the documentation you folks have in front of you now. Six structural Building Permits require special inspections. Fiftyfour structural special requirements were documented on the permit drawings. Final letters of certification for the 54 items were received and approved by d. B. I. Prior to final inspection approval. So this is the project overview. These are the actual permits that would that were taken out. Do you have copies of this . This is just so much. Im trying to process all of this. I have a copy of it. That is why i brought it like this. You can see the amount of printing i get it, but there is i am more than happy to give you my copy here. Sure. Thank you. I think i have one here. I would be glad to do that sorry about that. If i knew i would have made enough for everybody. Would you like me to continue and read through the actual permits they have . The first one was number 21409226974. This was issued to remove an illegal dwelling unit at the basement. The second one you dont have to read the numbers. That would save us some time. Just tell us what it was. The second one was issued without Planning Department review to replace perimeter foundation of existing crawlspace inkind. The third was also issued without Planning Department approval to review and revise to excavate 4 feet under existing crawlspace for new storage. The next was issued to convert existing storage to a new garage and demo front wall for a new garage door. Number 5, excavate to expand where yard storage. Number 6 was approved for interior remodel relocation of the lower unit from first level to basement, new windows and doors on north elevation, new hydraulic elevator and new dormer windows. Seven, was issued to excavate, expand the rear yard space beyond the rear deck. Eight, replace the fence with new 9foot, 6inch stucco wall to comply with the notice of violation. Both discrepancies and beyond the scope. The first one, the first permit their shows the basement being converted to storage to comply with a notice of violation for removal of the spot. The second one represents building envelope expansion without a permit. Third, there are no calculations on the plan showing the amount of excavation, probably about 100 cubic yards. The fourth is to propose new storage on september 12 as identified as existing storage on december 13th. Fifth, there were no calculations showing the extent of excavation added to what was done at the front under the original permit for new storage. And at the rear under number 6, the as built attic window and garage door were enlarged and two of the eastside rooms were combined into a single 8foot by 16 dormer. Multiple site visits occurred at the site. Since the first complaint was filed in 2014. The current notice of violation was issued on may 20th, 2019 based on Site Investigation for exceeding the scope of Building Permits and misrepresentation of existing conditions. Twenty Building Permit inspections have been conducted on the site. Each of the seven complaint cases that were closed were either duplicate or other complaints, or permits were secured and completed documenting the necessary compliance. It is currently being reviewed by planning and appears to document the as built conditions and the changes needed to ensure compliance with d. B. I. Notice of violation. So the permit application is currently being reviewed by planning. This file corrective permit seems to be a comprehensive and outlines the existing as built proposed conditions. If the permit is approved, they will start a work inspection that will be scheduled for review for the stakeholder. Thank you very much. Okay. If you have any questions i will be glad to answer them. Stick around. Thank you. Thank you. Im with Planning Department staff. I also have a small presentation to discuss how the research affects the planning role and permitting of some of the features of these permits and where permits are lacking in regards to what we have reviewed or built out of scope of the approved permits. The first permit i wanted to mention was the one in 2014 which was the first permit of the project. Planning did approve this payment overthecounter. The intent of the permit was to remove the illegal dwelling unit per a notice of violation. Is happy and in 2014 and this was the city and building and Planning Department policy in that year which was to issue violations and allowed allow their removal of dwelling units overthecounter. Subsequent permit came in 2014. The proposal was to convert an existing storage area that was stated to have a 7foot internal height to a garage. That was approved overthecounter by the preservation counter as it was proposed and there was no expansion. It was a vertical but inward into the earth addition. The project was an unknown resource, which is why this was reviewed by a preservation planner. The project proposed demolition of the project out of the propertys front retaining wall and at an opening for new garage , and to rebuild the front entrance and stare us about this new garage. No other facade changes were proposed on these plans. Within the rearview, we find existing storage area did not technically exist in the depth and height that the plan stated. Therefore, the plans disclosed no excavation, so there was no ceqa review for excavation on the permit. And then in 2015, there was a much larger permit that was submitted to the department. The proposal was to relocate a lower unit. The lower unit to the first floor, to the basement level where that previous unit had been located. There was an interior remodel and inkind replacement of doors and windows on the north elevation, and the addition of three roof dormers. And the front dormer of the three dormers was set back 10 feet from the front wall, which is the preservation standard as a depth and not deemed to be impactful to the Historic Resource of the building. The relocation of the unit from the first floor to this new basement level occurred prior to the adoption of the Planning Commissions flat removal policy , and the units relocation match the requirements of section 317, because a unit technically got larger in size and therefore match the threshold of not reducing a unit by 75 feet 75 , which we consider demolition. This permit is where we believe much of the out of scope and unpermitted work occurred. Many of the items featuring revitalization came from. The conditions were misrepresented of an infill at the rear of the structure and this is an area seeking revitalization and a variance from for the last 1 foot and 10 inches of it. Two of the dormers were merged. They are no longer making them exempt from section 311. Those features are seeking the violation today. The double hung windows were replaced with wood clad aluminum , which was not approved by preservation staff. The project sponsors proposing to return those two would double hung windows. That two door entranceway to the main structure was replaced with a single entry that the department felt was overly glazed. It gave them directions to add more wood to the entrance and the lobsters a project sponsors proposed to do so in the building plans. The garage door was brought forward to proximally 4 feet to the front Property Line. That area seeking revitalization today. The front retaining wall was raised in height. Those features were determined to meet the provisions of what we refer to as a snout garage which is a garage located in a front setback, only allowed on buildings that have steep slopes and properties with steep slopes the Property Line with a maximum height of 11 feet and 4 inches was constructed and seeking revitalization and a variance from the Zoning Administrator today. And eastside Property Line, wind and privacy screen had been constructed. It is now being proposed to be removed from the project. A westside whitewall was relocated and we found what was enclosed with a vertical glass screening on the first and second floors, thereby blocking the adjacent neighbors matching light walls. The Department Recommends that the d. R. Be taken to remove that feature from the project. And a wooden fence was constructed at the rear of the Property Line above the retaining wall which is seeking revitalization. There is an additional request from the Planning Commission during the continuance, and that was for the project sponsor to study the potential of adding a third unit to this project site. The plans that you receive this week do not have a third unit, by the project sponsor has submitted to the commission there study and analysis of that aspect of the potential project, and that was emailed email to everyone earlier this week. A site visit was performed in june, and the revised plan before you captures a few of the features that were additionally noticed. Things we found like the swell at the end, there were carpet walls on the roof that are now being proposed to be removed, some of the materials on the roof were never called out, that being a standing metal roof, which they are seeking revitalization of, and the sighting siding of the dormers were also clouded in. Preservation staff does not agree with that alteration, so the project sponsor is proposing the return that to a horizontal wooden siding that matches the existing facade and what had historically been on this building. I believe there is commission received a letter from georgia and i want to cement a record. I know i received it this weekend from kevin chang. I believe that is it. We do recommend you take d. R. Truth this glass screen that was added to the light wall the property side. Im available for presentations. Thank you. We will now hear from the d. R. Requester. You will have three minutes. Thank you. My name is kevin chang. Where to start. There are two big issues to deal with here. One is whether or not there was proper oversight been provided by building and the Planning Department, and then this project and all the deficiencies and transgressions associated with this project. I will speak first to the transgressions of the project. I hope we will have time to dig deeper into the issues with the old site. I have Detailed Analysis that i like to present to Commission Concerning the two presentations that staffers just made and the deficiencies with them, in particular, with the building inspection permit issue review. Here are some documents for staff, for commissioners, please , to share. If i understand correctly, the project sponsors directional response to whether im adding a third unit in their lengthy letter can be summarized and reimagined through the great gatsby analogy that was used last time. The great gatsby is killed after being caught killing myrtle. Daisy asked that her rollsroyce not be impounded because that would be expensive and she cannot live without her rollsroyce. She asks whether she can contribute instead to the police fund and whether the police can just forget about what happened that daisy hit and ran over myrtle. That sums up the request. Problems continue to be found about the property. In addition to the 13 counts of violation cited in the staff report in the Planning Commission hearing, there are additionally 11 counts cited after planning and building conducted their june 13th site visit. The most important ones out of those 24 counts now is page 1 in the presentation given to you. The rear yard storage excavated beyond scope of permit and is illegally converted. Do we have any Public Comment. In support of the dr request requester . I am in opposition to the project. Okay. If there is no comment in support of the dr requester we will hear from the project sponsor. Good afternoon i am tim clanton, project sponsor. We have a general Contracting Firm that is operated in San Francisco over i want to focus on the path forward in your previous feedback. First let me say that we fully understand the seriousness of the situation. We recognize the commissions responsibility to decide what is a just and appropriate and the fact they your actions set important precedents. The stakes are high for our company, as we are in financial peril inching closer to losing the property that has been under planning Code Enforcement for the past 16 months. The direction of the may hearing was to explore adding a third unit. We evaluated what it would take to do this and engage a to assess the fees and estimate a cost. Creating an additional unit is physically possible, but it would require a nearly complete interior remodel including separating and reconfiguring income of the fire bring their systems, utilities, new kitchen, relocation of bathrooms. The Construction Costs are estimated to be 800,000 up to 1. 2 million. [reading notes] bring in the real cost of adding a third unit two up to 2 million or more. We have incurred 1. 1 million in loan carrying costs as well as property taxes and other various expenses. Our primarily five [inaudible] while we understand the desire to increase the citys Housing Stock and identify a remedy that would create a strong disincentive the overwhelming financial preclude us from constructing a 30 unit. I remind you when we bought the building in 2014, a notice of an unwanted third unit was in place. We complied with the order, receive permits and completed the work. To require we undo actions to at the specific direction of the city strikes me as unjust if not unlawful. We take for responsibly for how we got here. We would therefore respectfully propose an alternative approach. In lu of adding a unit to the finished building we propose to make a sizable payment toward bmr unit with the citys Inclusionary Housing Program following the sale of the building. Using the citys current calculation we estimate the payment to be around 250,000. We suggest this remedy as it would help the housing crisis, allow our business to survive and allow disruption for our neighbors. [reading notes] the enforcement process will have worked. No one can reasonably say that the more than 1. 1 million in carrying costs are robust, inclusionary housing fee on the other measure employed by panny do not send a strong message as set a powerful president. We regret to and acknowledge our our hope is for the process to come to a viable conclusion. Think you, your time is up. Thank you. We will now take Public Comment and support of the project sponsor. My name is tim marano, i am the owner directly adjacent to this project. I live there with my family, and longterm tenants. Everyone has on my house and all of the neighbors i have spoken to are strongly opposed to further construction on the site. We have just endured for years of intense bulldozing, hammering, cement mixers, and hordes of workers invading our privacy and we have been through enough. We are happy with the structure, as it stands. It is ready to be occupied it. We are excited to have new neighbors. We just want to get on with our lives and back to a sense of normalcy, and community. The other thing i want to mention, this building has been vacant for many years which, you know, creates a breach. It is a magnet for all sorts of bad behavior when the sun goes down
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.