Inconsistencies in the plans maybe accounted for i think had different architect the last time of the board of appeals. They have revised the plan and submitted those to the board and those we believe the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans if the board feels that is appropriate. The revisions do not have a different project, they just have more accurate dimension. It has very clear depiction on how the measurement is under the planning code and we have determined that it does comply with the provisions for height. I know that one cannot obtain a variance for height, its never been allowed in the San Francisco planning code. But that is something that cannot be done. We have received this and found that it complies with the height. The definition of height does define how you measure for an unsloping lot. You do it per final grade. You dont do it towards the front and the back and run a straight line. Its based upon the cross section. When it talks about average i
Measurement is under the planning code and we have determined that it does comply with the provisions for height. I know that one cannot obtain a variance for height, its never been allowed in the San Francisco planning code. But that is something that cannot be done. We have received this and found that it complies with the height. The definition of height does define how you measure for an unsloping lot. You do it per final grade. You dont do it towards the front and the back and run a straight line. Its based upon the cross section. When it talks about average in a definition of height, its talking about average of the two sides of the building of the groundel elevation and thats at the point from the height. It can be more challenging to determine what the heights of native grade is on either side of the building when your built lot line to lot line. In this case its an rf 1st district to catch on the side yard and they were able to take those from existing grade which is what the
Dimension. It has very clear depiction on how the measurement is under the planning code and we have determined that it does comply with the provisions for height. I know that one cannot obtain a variance for height, its never been allowed in the San Francisco planning code. But that is something that cannot be done. We have received this and found that it complies with the height. The definition of height does define how you measure for an unsloping lot. You do it per final grade. You dont do it towards the front and the back and run a straight line. Its based upon the cross section. When it talks about average in a definition of height, its talking about average of the two sides of the building of the groundel elevation and thats at the point from the height. It can be more challenging to determine what the heights of native grade is on either side of the building when your built lot line to lot line. In this case its an rf 1st district to catch on the side yard and they were able to
Different architect the last time of the board of appeals. They have revised the plan and submitted those to the board and those we believe the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans if the board feels that is appropriate. The revisions do not have a different project, they just have more accurate dimension. It has very clear depiction on how the measurement is under the planning code and we have determined that it does comply with the provisions for height. I know that one cannot obtain a variance for height, its never been allowed in the San Francisco planning code. But that is something that cannot be done. We have received this and found that it complies with the height. The definition of height does define how you measure for an unsloping lot. You do it per final grade. You dont do it towards the front and the back and run a straight line. Its based upon the cross section. When it talks about average in a definition of height, its talking about average of the tw
Inch. Because its at a slope, because you are talking about the minimum height under the building code. Okay, mr. Sanchez . Thank you, scott san she was Planning Department. As it was noted at the last hearing there were some inaccuracies by the appellant and i appreciate the board going back to view the accurate height requirements. They did a new survey and noted this is a project that has been around for several years and i think some of these inconsistencies in the plans maybe accounted for i think had different architect the last time of the board of appeals. They have revised the plan and submitted those to the board and those we believe the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans if the board feels that is appropriate. The revisions do not have a different project, they just have more accurate dimension. It has very clear depiction on how the measurement is under the planning code and we have determined that it does comply with the provisions for height. I know