The ceqa extension date of the existing two story with the was approximately 3190, and that the proposal that was reviewed is ready 940. I am not in is 3940. I am not entirely sure if ceqa was before or i think it was done at the same time. I am sorry. When this home was sold, and says clearly it was 1640 square feet. Wheres the discrepancy . Sometimes what areas you include in your Square Footage will be different depending on who is calculating. I am just saying, i cant speak to how they calculated what their Square Footage is area sometimes they dont count the garage, or storage space. There was a crawlspace that was not a habitable space. Prior to the proposal here, was to actually make that habitable race. I dont know if that area was included in the calculation. The only numbers i have to that effect in this case report from the ceqa review. Thank you. One more question for planning, on this, so we go to commissioner richards, bill back what was there, what is plannings disagreement with that staff can speak about the design review. Generally speaking, when someone removes voluntarily removes, a portion of the structure and they want to put it back, the baseline is co conforming, and then reviewing it again fresh with the residential Design Guidelines. From that perspective, i think the staff review with a Residential Design Advisory Team determined that what is in front of you today, along with perhaps taking the variance portions away would be more consistent with the residential Design Guidelines. Portions of this would require correct. The pop out at the rear is permitted. If youre going to do two stories you have to have a 5foot setback on each side. The alternative is you can do full lot with only one story. The proposal was, or the recommendation from staff was to either make that completely co compliant, and also there was obviously a bit of tradeoff that staff felt was consistent with the residential Design Guidelines for adding the third floor. Thank you. Commissioner moore. In fairness to all people, and in fairness to this commission, as we are going back and forth as what is the Square Footage what is proposed . I think on all levels including the drawing on the screen, which is not in our packet, this the middle lacks information by which we can compare. The comment that mr. Teague just made a minute ago, is just one of the concerns expressed by the rdt hissing in the application that the fourth floor has to fall back on both sides, which this the middle does not do. There is also no real credible 3d other than what is on the screen right now which makes the project, as submitted, very hard to understand. There is no discussion on materials. There is and was insufficient discussion on the proposal. I believe this project should be sent back to really explain to us, in more detail, of what it is trying to do, and where it came from . Aside from the fact, i feel as frustrated, as commissioner richards described that this is another demolition. D. B. I. Is not here to help us through the process. I am seeing generically, for this commission to work through applications, like this, without having the support to resolve the issues at hand. Im asking for a continuance with specific instructions of what needs to be shown to us probably more sensitive response to some of the neighbors relative to privacy light, and air. The project is not put into context that we really see josh we would have a much clearer understanding area understanding. Thank you commissioner. I also hear commissioner richards call for consistency in terms of our approach to illegal demolition policy. The vacuum of not having this defined, by the board of supervisors and getting it cleaned up. We are just going to real life, you know, project where we have to be consistent and give the public, you know, and expectation of what will happen. With that, i am not sure what really happened here. I do not have enough information. What was the original Square Footage . Its like a really big question for me. I hear that there was storage there was not space under the deck. I would like to have, the more dearly defined what was there what was approved and you know, what they are asking. While i sea on the packets, there is a side comparison it is not enough for me. It is not clear to me what it is that was approved. I see, you know, it has been talked in a little bit. I think the top floor vastly over compensates for what they are losing. I would like to be able to really see, you know, was this a case where, you know, the contractor way overshot what they were doing . That is what everybody says all the time, right . You know, i would like to, you know, be open enough to consider that maybe this happened. Or is it a case where someone was just trying to, you know, circumvent the permitting process that get a vastly more Square Footage, without having to go through the hoops. Hoops . I dont have enough information to say definitively that this is what happened, and i would like to support the call for continuing this, until we can have a clearer understanding of, you know, what was there what was proposed and approved and what is being proposed now . Commissioner richards. When i bought my house, i had rooms down. My house had a Square Footage on it that the assessor showed, in the real estate agent, the assessors map did not show it. I went down and appended the record to show i look at the assessors date on this parcel, you want to maximize your sale. You have additional Square Footage you want to call it bonus rooms, rooms down, whatever. It shows a connection. Did it say 1640 . Did it say subject to we are going to append the data at the Assessors Office . What we are hearing is double i mean i want to see proof next time of what the Square Footage is. Right now i am looking at the assessors data and its the only thing i have going on and it is axing 40. 1640. The assessors data generally does not include areas that are considered habitable. It would be hopeful to have raw numbers in a case report and on the plans. The plans, what we ask a project like this to do, on floor side show what was approved to be done and what was the existing condition. What has been done so far on the site and what they are proposing. You can see on the basement plan , and the First Floor Plan all of that area was considered storage and did not have an exit to the rear. The first floor was a garage with three different storage rooms. My guess is that was not included. You can get a pretty good sense about the floor plate for all of the floors, except the third for match up pretty well except for that they reduce the mass in the rear. That is where you get into the question of, they have clearly reduced the size of the building in the rear and they are proposing to increase the size of the building vertically. How much of a trade is that from a numbers perspective . Going down the road, if youre thinking about a decision that is going to put it back, as it was, that is going to lead to the question, do we put it back as it was literally, or as Square Footage was . There may be a proposal with some type of third floor that may work better, and have less massive rear portion to it and work better for the neighborhood. Before i let you let me be clear about what i was saying is that i am not advocating actually, that we put it back exactly as it was. I think these folks were doing something, they were trying to remodel and expand a little bit within what, you know, they thought. We made them do something that was co compliant where, you know, there was a demolition and it was clear that they werent going to keep the original structure that they had to build something new. I am clear on that. What i do not want to do, you know if folks think by demolishing something illegally they can then get a whole new floor, and a bunch of Square Footage, we are sending out the wrong message. I want to be clear. I dont have enough evidence that this did not happen. In the context of that it is now 6 00 oclock, we have been hearing this story all day every day, four months actually for years. Before you come to the Planning Commission with something i would like to make sure that what we are doing is not exacerbating the problem. I am not there right now. I just wanted to make clear, i am not advocating for putting a bat i understand what youre saying. I totally agree with your description of this. I do feel like we should generally be consistent. There is issues like this that will come up, somebody is adding another unit, or, what they have demoed cannot be put back or we would rather not have it be put back. What are do then . Do they get penalized more because what they had was in the rear yard encroachment and you can get a variance . And then Something Like hopkins was a more Speculative Development than someone trying to live in the home. I think commissioner richards, i agree we should generally be consistent. We should generally have all of the facts. That is why we are here to make a judgment call on this. Generally support the same Square Footage. It sounds like there issues with the height. I think we need more of, kind of the story. If you put it back the way it was, but we dont want to put it back the way it was given where it is in the rear yard. We have things competing against each other. We should get more facts on this one. Im looking for consistency but more in the realm of what is given to us. The drawing lacks significant dimensions. The drawing missus a whole bunch of normally required elements of which we need to understand the project. We are here to support building remodel, building expansion, and all of it, it needs to be done in a manner in which we can understand. Any architect can indeed retrace what was, give us the proper Square Footage including the interpretation that may be existing between the Assessors Office and what an architect describes as habitable, versus generally assigned rooms. Everything is possible. However, needs to be in front of us. If it is not you get basically finding a commission that will not support flybynight approvals, but will ask for apples and apples to look at what we can, need to approve. That is basically where this project is not have a complete submittal. We ask for that. I asked for a continuance, and emotion and it means to establish a date that is suitable for the commission, as well as the people. Second. What are the dates on the calendar . I dont think this is going to take that long. I think we needed more information. It should not take you that long to, you know, gather what we are asking for. If youre asking for Additional Information commissioners, again, all of your hearings are impacted, at this. , through october. You could potentially continue this matter to september 19. After that, i would not continue it until november 7. Lets do september 19. I want to say something. The thing that is going to convince me about what was there as your appraisal report. You bring the appraisal report when you bought the building, it has photos of every room, all the dimensions. That will tell us an awful lot. I really would like to see that. Okay. There had to be an appraisal report unless you paid cash for it. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to continue. On that motion to continue this matter with direction of of the commission september 19. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 60. I will continue the hearing until september 19. So yet another one for you. Item eckstein a and b im. The commission is asking for a 15 minute break area is that okay . Sorry for everyone that is here. We have been sitting here for a long time. Were going to take a little when speaking before the commission, do state your name for the record. Commissioners, we left off on your regular calendar on item 16 a and b. 336 pierce street. You will consider kit the conditional use authorization in the Zoning Administrator will consider a request for variance. Good evening commissioners. I am with Planning Department staff a the project before you is requesting conditional use authorization to legalize the demolition of a sickle family dwelling located in the rear yard and authorized construction of a replacement to the dwelling unit pursuant to the planning section. The subject property is located at pierce street. In february 2010, the department of building inspection oakland opened a complaint case regarding the attached home in the rear yard stating the building was abandoned and partially collapsed. In november of 2012, the permit to repair the dwelling was issued. In april 2015, the Planning Department opened an enforcement case after receiving a complaint that the building was demolished the demolition was confirmed by staff. At the time of the demolition the code required mandatory discretionary review for residential demolition. The Planning Commission hearing was held on march 10th, 2016, in the Planning Commission guidance at the time included a reduction in building mass of the replace and structure removal of offstreet parking from the ground floor of the rear dwelling. It was continued and during the continuance a planning code was amended to require conditional use authorization for residential demolitions and that is how we are here today for conditional use hearing. The proposed building will be 700 square feet compared to the previous building which was 1,160 square feet with 580 of that being the dwelling unit. Since the publication of the staff report, new information was provided to the department by the applicant. Previously was thought that existing developed but dwelling unit was 21 feet in height. The applicant has clarified that existing building was exactly 17 feet tall and will be revising the plans for the reconstructed dwelling unit so that the maximum height will be 17 feet. Reconstruction of the dwelling unit at a height greater than what was previously was listed is not permitted by the planning code. Because replacement structures located in the required rear yard a variance is also required. Additionally, while the subject lot only permits five dwelling units in the proposed dwelling unit would be the ninth dwelling unit on the lot construction is permitted as the replacement of a nonconforming density dwelling unit pursuant to planning code section 181. That department has received one comment from the Property Owner on the project expressing opposition. The concern is centred around the previous unpermitted work and privacy issues that would result with her request for a onestory dwelling. On balance they find the project to be compatible with the general plan and desirable for the community as it restores a unitive housing and recognizes approval with conditions as approving the draft motions with a condition that the proposed building shall not exceed a height of 17 feet. Thank you and i am available for any questions. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is mark and my family has owned the property since 1991. The cottage was in distress and i had a contractor provide permitting repair the structure. He got permits to get the repairs and the contract exceeded the permits and rebuilds the structure. This is absolutely against our instructions. We brought in a new Team Including a wellknown engineer and architect and a Forensic Consultant to help us evaluate what was there and what is what to do now. We have worked diligently with planning staff to design an appropriate unit without parking following the commissions directive. I cannot change the past, i can only move forward with replacing the unit. With my familys it sincerest apologies to the labourers and to the city. Thank you. Thank you. If i could have the overhead, please . Commissioners, Ryan Patterson from the project sponsor. This is a completely new team and we had no involvement in the prior iteration of this project. We have taken the time to meet with neighbors to carefully rethink the project and to do a sensitive redesign and take the commissions comments to heart. We have removed the parking, we have removed to the entry stairs internal and away from the neighbors in the south and the windows only look forward into the subject property. I will note there is a large tree in between the proposed unit and the property to the south. Is approximately 63 feet away from the neighbors to the south and i would note, unlike the previous cases that you have heard, we are proposing something that is significantly smaller than what was there before. Thank you. The building was there for over a century. It was one dwelling over multiple garages. The structure had failure to the facade due to a storm. It was prepared with permits. There is no denying that. We are apologizing for it. I have been tasso putting back a onebedroom unit. Nothing beyond that in terms of height stories, what will go back is what is there. I have a challenge i have an existing retaining wall on one side of the building that has incredibly high oyster readings. That does not look concrete. That moisture is coming through. What was put there and what i am tasked to go back is a garage retaining wall with loopholes in it weep holes in it. I cannot change that. I have to build to it or i am working on a neighbors property which is not feasible. So my choice was to put the bedrooms on the second floor so people dont breathe in the moisture coming through the building and thats why there is a onebedroom on the second floor. I have designed the building such that on the second floor, all there is is a bedroom and a full bath. On this side of the building where all the moisture is coming through is a dead space, stairs, storage to get up. So while it seems a bigger space , most of this is space to get to the second floor so people are moving away from the moisture coming through this wall. There is a design option which we investigated for a onestory building. That i dont think works. It ends up with a studio and even with a studio i would have to raise the first floor off the ground, build a crawlspace, so the area that is directly in the line of sight of one of the neighbors who is most concerned which would be squished down to eight and a half feet to, a 7 foot ceiling and a 1 foot floor, we would have to raise up that entire onestory structure for a crawlspace and an elevated wood floor so the area that they are actually seeing would be taller than what we are proposing. We have squished it down. All the windows are facing forward. There is no balcony over there. We will do a very complex structural for floor so that we can get to a 17foot ceiling height. The Forensic Consultant we brought in evaluated the heights we know with certainty it is between 17 feet and 17 feet five , but we are positive it was at least 17 feet so we designed a building around that. I am the preservation architect. Attempted to reconstruction work from historical fiberglass. You can see in the overhead the existing structure. Those are 8foot tall pieces of plywood. We needed a scale elements we could explain the building height. The building did slope up between the front and there we are so it was a fairly good roof slope towards the front. So the analysis allowed us to come up with that number. Thank you. Thank you very much. Back to your presentation . Okay. We will now take Public Comment on this item. Anyone who wants to provide Public Comment please come up. I have no speaker cards. Hello commissioners. Myself my wife, my two small children live immediately next door to the south at 330 pierce street. I dont 100 agree on the time on exactly the way things went down on this project. I moved in 2010. There was an old abandoned shack i dont know that i would necessarily it is nothing like what we are looking at now. There was a couple of stairs that led up to it. The ceiling was collapsed, the front row was falling down. They told me when i moved in that it would be demoed. Five years went by, 2015, all of a sudden a bunch of guys came in we tour the old place down and rebuilds this big two story structure. We called the Building Department that was given permission, they said no, everything is perfect. It is exactly to the letter just like the blueprints of the old building. You have nothing to worry about. This is crazy i know this is not the same building. For one, the front or was on the left and now the front door is on the right. How are you saying this is the same building . I got in touch with somebody i knew for the Planning Department and he got in touch with dan seiter. He did an investigation, i showed him all the pictures that i had he says, yeah, this is crazy. This isnt the same building. Stop the project. That is the current state it is in now. We sent it to the Planning Commission in 2016 like three years ago. I remember some of the commissioners telling us, you have come here begging for forgiveness instead of asking for permission, and then mr. Fong told them, hey you come back with a onestory structure and some green space, he has eight other tenants in the building. No green space no habitable backyard for anybody bring it down to a onestory structure, but some green space, get the cars out of here work with your neighbors. He met with us a month later at our house and told me we put a couple little slats here over the existing building over some of the windows. If you dont like it, i will just leave this whole building here to decay in your yard. I said fine, i would rather have a decaying building rather than a building i dont agree with. Fastforward to current day, he never came and talked to us after that. We submitted these plans to you guys without they submitted these plans without any input at all. They sent is an email last week and said, did you like the plans and we said we dont like the plans. You didnt even talk about it here. I respectfully ask that you please im just a little guy. He knows what hes doing and trying to say he doesnt know how this whole system works. I think that he does. You could look up west coast property management. They know exactly what they are doing. Please help the little guy. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello i live next door at 3302 pierce street with my wife and twin infants. So based on our last meeting we talked about houses in the neighborhood if there are houses that our neighbors have with dwelling units in the back and theres no neighboring houses that have a twostory house sickle factly family house in the back and just to echo what lou said, we would like to call would like to discuss mr. Levinsons character he has always done things according to the way that he wants to do things and ask for forgiveness later on. And my understanding he had a permit to replace the existing property and the foundation was torn out, the stairs are on a different side the retaining wall is in a different side, so he basically did what he wanted to do and didnt follow the rules of the city. My understanding is that a unit can be grandfathered in because it is not a replacement anymore. Overall, we are happy to compromise even though, you know, he is not replacing the existing structure. We are okay with a onestory unit where people dont have direct view into our house and into our windows, into our backyard with all the little kids playing. Just to show what we are talking about, there is a picture of our view into the neighboring units. You only have 30 more seconds this is our window. You can see directly into the windows of the house. As you can see the tree has little to no leaves and theres virtually no privacy that can look into our living room, into our bedroom, in the neighboring room. Yeah just thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner hillis . I remember this item from three years ago that we were here talking about this. Just a question for the project sponsor, what are you doing with before there was a garage through the entire building there was a passageway, people parked in the back and the structure that was there before. It is a good question. Neighbors expressed a concern about not having a green space there that is parking. Parking is going away. Is there parking currently there . In the back of the building . I dont know if it is currently at the moment being used as parking but there is parking inside an enclosed structure in the Main Building which leads to this back area. Historically, it was used as a passageway into the garage into the backyard. That is getting closed off. This will become open space which the neighbors have requested as a result. But currently you said someone parks in the backyard . It is essentially garage space. It is like a long and narrow garage space okay. All right. I remember this. There was dispute over how tall the building was before. I get the neighbors argue there will be some impact. There is a unit now back there. It is somewhat odd that we have this, but they are around. There is one on the block across from me that was a garage in the same building where they converted it into a unit. There is some impact and some privacy concerns, but it is a modest cottage. It is similar to an a. D. U. That we have asked to create in spaces, so i am okay with this and think it works and we are converting what used to be a garage into a unit. Theres nobody else here to speak. I move here to approve. I dont know if we can condition it that that garage is closed and there is no longer access to the backyard for parking. Yes you can condition it relative to how parking is on the site. You can get a better understanding of how access can be. The driveways closed in the back and there is no access for vehicles in the backyard. So the only legal parking was at the ground floor of the previous building. There was two Parking Spaces on the lower level. So with those spaces being removed, they will have to remove the curb cut so there will be no more driving. It doesnt seem like those spaces are being removed. You are keeping a long and narrow garage on the front building. Correct, but it is essentially acting as a driveway where they were supposed to be no parking in the lower level. Without any legal Parking Spaces they will not be afforded access to that driveway im sorry im very confused. Why are you saying that there is no longer legal Parking Spaces . The building that is currently there that was built without the right permit is it being torn down. I get that that is not what we are talking about. The building on the front has a garage. That is how the exit to get to the back building and under the Building Code, which i have worked extensively on, you cannot commingle parking with an exit corridor. Got it. The curb goes away they will be a bollard at the back and there is no longer now we understand. Thank you. It will all be grass. The curb cut goes away, that is good. Commissioner richards, did you want to say anything . I made a motion but there is no second. Second. If there is nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. That will place is under your discretionary review calendar for items 18 a and b. You will consider them as we need to rule on the variance of pierce street. Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. I will close the public hearing and grant it with standard conditions. Very good. Back to the discretionary review calendar. Items 18 and 18 be. You will consider the discretionary review of the Zoning Administrator and we will route consider the request for variance. On may 9th 2019, after hearing and closing Public Comment, you continued this matter to july 18th by vote of 50. Commissioner johnson and richards were absent. On july 18th, 2019, you adopted a motion of intent to take sorry i was absent. I was here. This was on may 9th. Oh yeah,. I am just getting to the 18 th now. [laughter] sorry, im cranky. On july 18th, 2019, you adopted a motion of intent to take d. R. And approve with two flats a groundfloor unit and continued the matter to todays date. That was the day that commissioner fung and commissioner hillis were absent. In order for you to participate today, you will need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. That would be commissioners richards fong, and hillis. Yes. Yes. I did. Thank you. As this is the second, maybe third hearing, actually we limit the project sponsor to lets do three minutes. D. R. Requester and project sponsor have three minutes in Public Comment is one. Yes. Very good. Good evening. Before you is a discretionary review request of a permit seeking to legalize alterations and additions made to what is now a threestory over two basement two family dwelling. On july 28th, the Commission Adopted a motion with the intent to take d. R. To revise the project to have the building restored to the original flat considered configuration and add a third unit. At the time, staff requested a continuance for more time for us to review policies along with the state attorney to review the procedural implications of such a decision. The Department Staff met and consulted with the City Attorney s office in the project sponsor since that date on july 18th. Response to the continuance, the projects of a project sponsor submitted plans for a proposed three unit residential building for the commissions consideration. However, the perunit proposal is not consistent with the original three unit configuration and it keeps it seeks to keep some of the additions are constructed and proposed for legalization on the plans that the commission reviewed at the first hearing for this project. The following is a list of changes required of the as built structures to conform with the revised plans that are before you today. Additionally, a sponsor has submitted a letter slighting the level of effort to achieve the work that is proposed. I will go quickly to give a summary of what they are proposing. They are proposing no changes in seeking to utilize the threecar garage, or keep it. At the basement level there are no changes. It will remain as a onebedroom unit. The fourth plan seeks a legalization of 63 square feet that were expanded over the original footprint of the building at the rear. This is also the location where the unpermitted dwelling unit had been removed 2014, and as a reminder the true conditions of that original 2014 space would not be able to house a legal Building Code compliant dwelling unit. Levels one, two, and three which is the attic proposed is a 4,021 square foot threebedroom unit but the kitchen and living space on level one two bedrooms on level two, and the master bedroom in the attic. The revised plans proposed to create two units in the space at level one. Will provide a 1,696 square foot onebedroom unit. With that rear yard encroachment building proposed to remain and accommodate a bedroom the variance would still be required for this feature. At level two and three it would be converted to a 23,252 bedroom unit. The new features that would be required per the plan. Speaker04 you would be the upper unit and we would both have access at the front of the building at level one, which is compliant with the historic configuration with two entrances and a wall separating the entrance of the two units. A kitchen would be added at the rear of the second floor to accommodate the third unit that is being created and rear access stairs to be added within the light will courtyard from level one to level two and providing all three units with access to the rear yard usable open space. The structure will require an additional variance from the Zoning Administrator. The department makes no recommendations and we want to provide you an analysis of what was presented before you. Thank you. Okay. We will now hear from the d. R. Requester. You get three minutes. Thank you. I have a presentation for the commissioners. I believe the proposal by the project sponsor is well intended , but unfortunately there are some complications with the proposal as they issue those issues are not compliant in this proposal. A three unit building requires according to the fire code a second means of egress as protected to the corridor. It is not incorporated in these proposals directly from the front the back of the building to the front. So as he said, it is a beautiful idea ruined by an ugly fact, and that is that this building is proposed not compliant with the fire code and amongst other code requirements. That being said what i can discuss today goes beyond these proposals by the project sponsor , and i would like to address directly the lack of Code Enforcement on this project in your presentation on page one there is problems with the Code Enforcement. The timeline has missed Code Enforcement opportunities. There are onsite inspections for a total of 26 inspections over a 304 month period. Basically one every six weeks. If you check out the first line when steel and concrete inspections were conducted, the excavation was done between december 2014 and october 2015. Why did the inspector not noticed the full extent of the 822 cubic yards of excavation . Checkout when the inspector determined it was okay to cover inspections. Sheet rock is being loaded on may 2016. Notice that the roof is ripped off the attic. It is highly unusual to load sheet rock when the building is not closed. Why did the inspector not notice the extent of demolition before he okayed the closed inspection . Checkout planning taking two years to issue the planning and ovi after zero permitting complaint in may 2018. A building known to afford complaints of planning was in a matter of days. Why does this happen within a matter of years . Checkout the 90 inspections including complaint inspections that were done by the same building inspector. From start of work inspection to the final inspection. It was signed by the same inspector. No violations determined when reviewing complaints. Why was there no rotation of inspectors during this 304 month period . Checkout how the building takes one year to issue and ovi after planning in n. O. V. Why did the building issue in n. O. V. Only after adr was filed. Check out the special inspections geotechnical report. Check out checkout that the problem involves an engineering group. All under investigation by the City Attorney. We have to really ask ourselves if the wheels of justice was selective or slow . Are staff incompetent or corrupt these questions should not be hard to answer. Thank you sir. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . My name is jury. This project represents a failure of the city to enforce the building and planning codes. The Planning Commission is once again being asked to find a just solution for a project that should have been stopped. This project is one of many troubled projects who d. B. I. And planning should have intervened and stopped the project in an earlier point, and put the project on an acceptable trajectory. D. B. I. s solution to the problem is to assign building inspectors senior willing inspectors. This solution is not working. If we recognize 18th street as one of the many projects that should have been stopped and redirected we should examine this project from a clinical perspective and asked, at what point should there have been a major intervention and what solution should have been imposed. If we want to find a better way forward, i ask the Planning Commission not to ask director ram with this important project. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Good evening, commissioners. I am glad to say that the project has been transformed into Building Three units on in our h3 lot. At the same time, because of all these irregularities and i only have 43 seconds i will not go through it, but you know what im talking about i would like to urge this commission to direct some sort of investigation as to how this happened. How could it be that so many cereal permits were allowed and we are here . Please, i urge you to followup and find out what happened here, but i am just saying i am happy with in our h3 lot. It is being equipped with three units. Commissioner hillis, i dont know will you ask for an a. D. U. Here . I have no idea. [laughter] thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . I have been following this case with concern. If it is going to move forward as a three unit, again, we need housing. I dont believe it is ready for prime time and to be discussing this if if they are not addressing their exiting concerns they need to do a project review meeting with the Fire Department and the Building Department to look at the drawings to confirm anything you guys may say shouldnt be going to the building permit. Where are your sprinklers where your set where is your second exit . They should presenting to a project the fire and building has said is buildable so you are not doing half of a project. So i dont know if that throws a monkeywrench into it, but i dont think this is an approvable project until fire looks at it for the exiting. There are other concerns i would have but to me, that is the most important thing that this is a buildable project. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . Okay. We will hear from the project sponsor. You have three minutes. Thank you. Since our hearing is in may and july we continue to work planning staff to explore the direction given by commissioners and at a third unit. At our last hearing we explained why adding a third unit to the building is financially infeasible and we suggested instead making a sizable in lieu contribution to help increase the citys Affordable Housing stock. The proposal was not accepted and we were instructed to return to the returned the building to its original flat configuration, which had included an illegal third unit. In identifying this remedy for the violations that have occurred it is our understanding that the commissions primary goal is to create an additional unit of housing. We heard the commissions directive and that is what the plans before you represent. They provide for three discrete units, h. On each on its own level. The lower unit is already in the same location that the previously removed unwarranted unit was and will remain as currently constructed. The new plans would divide up what is now one large threestory home into two separate units that occupy the same levels they did in the original configuration of the building when we got it. Please understand that will technically feasible, the work required to reconfigure the top three floors is considerable. We as we have previously stated the carrying cost we have incurred while working closely with the planning enforcement over the last 18 months, the additional time required to complete permitting and construction of the new proposed plans and the Construction Costs themselves will collectively preclude us from maintaining ownership of the property. We anticipate having the building go through a short sale foreclosure, but hopefully not before final plans are approved. If the plants before you today are accepted it is our sincere hope that completing the building could prove to be a viable option for someone else, and finally allow this long vacant building to provide actual housing. We understand the mistakes that we made and we sincerely regret the bad judgement that brought us here. We also understand the wide discretion held by the Planning Commission when various issues come before you and the importance of implementing policies consistently. That being said, we do not feel this process and how it has played itself out in our case has served any of the stakeholders well. They would appear to be any number of steps in the process of governing permit approvals neighborhood notice, planning Code Enforcement that do not play out as intended and result in further increasing both of the risks and the cost of building housing in San Francisco. Had our project been brought before the commission for consideration 18 months ago shortly after planning enforcement contacted us, we would likely have been able to avoid losing the building and our company which has been operating in San Francisco in good faith and Good Standing for more than 20 years. Nonetheless, we come before you with a proposed path forward and new plans that we believe represent a responsible reconfiguration of the existing building to meet the Planning Commissions desire for three discrete units. The plants before you also consider the need for producing housing in a timely manner as well as our neighbors fatigue with construction and the continued vacancy of the building. We respectfully ask that the commission puts an end to the 18 month enforcement process and approve the plans as presented. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner moore . Im sorry. Such a long day. You get a twominute rebuttal no this is the third hearing so no rebuttal. Okay. Commissioner moore . I question that the three dwelling units wished we asked for, are not flat, but the units that are proposed do not really work. I believe that the lowest unit does not have the proper exposure for the bedroom and is not fully approvable. The fact that the stair goes in front of that unit, given that it says way, way in the ditch makes that does not give it the required exposure in addition to the fact that there are potential issues with fire exiting that people in the audience brought up. As you go up, there has definitely been an attempt to relabel the functioning of the building in order to make it look like three units, but i do not believe that that is fully thought through given where the stairs are, given where windows are, and how people go across the landing to go to the bedroom when those are all full sliding doors. There is something not quite working. I think it was done in order to get approval, but it has not been thoroughly work through to be redesigned building. And while the approval that this commission may extend will suffice for the building to be flipped, i believe that we need to deliver a workable building given what we have been asking and confronted with. Commissioner richards . I agree. Can we talk about violations and when planning was aware of them and when notices went out . Can we go over that again . You are you asking . Staff. Mr. Horn. Because we had d. B. I. Complaints planning complaints, then things were closed out on the d. B. I. Front can you just go over that again . Yeah,. Im trying to find the old report. The first violation came is that here . Oh yeah. Do you have the pages with the violations . Sorry. Again, the first violation at the property was back in 2013 prior to ownership of the building to remove that unpermitted unit. Then as we know, there was a series of permits where that were applied for by the project sponsor through 2015 and 2016, and i believe so in spring of 2018, that is one the project went up for fail and that is when the n. O. V. Was received by the Building Department that was for sorry, i think it was my sincere apologies. Okay so, they were 12, 2018, the department received an enforcement request and planned and opened a case in 2018. On may 3rd planning sent a violation to the project sponsor providing a detailed account of the out of scope work that had been performed. Was the out of scope work dealing with all the excavation . That was one of the issues at hand, as well as the person who filed the complaint noticed there were other additions made to the property that were not on the permit. Okay. So on the excavation, i mean you know, i thought about this d. R. A long time, probably longer than i should have. The amount of excavation that occurred, would that have tripped up the need for an e. I. R. Based on ceqa . I dont think that would have triggered an e. I. R. It would have triggered a more robust cat x. And a submittal her preparation of a geotechnical review. It would have been improved by environment all staff. That is one of the interesting things that when mr. Kern came on july 18th i asked whether there was a geotech report and he said there was, but in the packet that he gave us, there wasnt. Are you aware of any geotechnical report . I have not seen one. I have talked to the sponsor about if one was prepared. Project sponsor do you have a geotechnical report for this project . Please speak in the microphone. The subcontractor has, i believe. We dont have it with us for this meeting. The permit that we brought for the open excavation would have taken a proximally six to eight weeks to get. We would have to submit for it and we would have got it. We would not have required an e. I. R. We would not have required a 311 notification. We skipped about six weeks in about 15,000 in fees. What understand as i got the special inspections handed to me last week with no geotechnical report to anchor them. By the way i actually went through these when they dropped them on the railing here. I thought wow, we really did our homework. Looking at this now i say i really would like to see a summary. As i went through it, you know, this report was handed in four times, this report was handed in three times this report was headed in three times, this report was headed in three times a lot of this stuff is duplicates of duplicates of duplicates. There is still no geotechnical report and no summary. I will be honest with you, you know i went to the university of pittsburgh and some of my friends are Structural Engineers i called them up and i said this must much excavation happened , this is when we had these reports calling for
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.