Previous Floor Area Ratio and Square Footage. And again no permits for five years. And all penalties go to the s. F. Small sites fund. So we do have some concerns about penalties and fines under section 319 and 317. Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the plan
Thank you so much for hearing our appeal. Happy birthday. Im sorry were this is taking up your item. Time. Here is the block we live on. Our house is in the middle here. And mr. Lees house is on the right. This is the first subdivision in San Francisco. We made good effort to solve this problem with mr. Lee. He has been unwilling to compromise or find a solution. He says he needs a window for ventilation and as a fire exit. Both are which are illegal uses of Property Line window. This is the Property Line window. Our goal is to treat the permit like a new window. For several years thats what i was told would happen by the preservation folks at the Planning Department. Heres the permit. You see the permit. Unfortunately you dont see this on the screen. These are joe duffys notes about the permit. When i heard it was happening it was crazy. We filed a complaint with d. B. I. Mr. Lee was able to walk down the dbi to get a permit to change the window. Mr. Duffy made all kinds of note about
Which expect richards to be absent. Item 1 consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for june 6th, to 19. I have no speaker cards. Would anybody like to provide Public Comment on the draft minutes . With that that comment is closed. Commissioner hillis. Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes for june 6th, 2019. [ roll col call ] so moved. That motion passes 50. Item 2. Commission comments and questions. So i would just like to comment on the hearing that we just had in respectfully request that the Department Come back with the work that you started a couple years ago and improve upon it. Because i think that part of what is going on is that they have been coming up every week begging us to look at the demo calcs and weve been waiting for this legislation and we havent taken the appropriate action. We need to do what is right. Im hoping we can support staff in doing that. Seeing nothing further we can move on to department matters. Item 3, directors announcement im
Georgia schuttish versus the department of building inspection with Planning Department approval and paul sheard versus department of building inspection with Planning Department approval. The subject property is 461463 duncan street, protesting the issuance on april 8, 2019, to James Odriscoll of a site permit, add new residential unit at basement, side addition at second floor east and west elevation, horizontal addition at first floor, provide basement level, remodel interior. This is application 201708 15 4881 and we will hear from ms. Schuttish first. Thank you. Thank you. I have seven minutes. Thank you. And good evening, commissioners, president swig, fellow commissioners. I gave copies of what i am going to show on the over head to mr. Odriscoll and mr. Teague at the start of the hearing and would be happy to give those to you, too. Good evening, again. I am here to ask you to preserve the battle front facade of the mediterranean revival style house. This is a design issue, an
Adjacent buildings, that it contains a gable roof, like several on the block. It contains a raised entry, like several on the block. And it contains some doublehung fixed encasement windows, all of which are found throughout the neighborhood. Therefore, doesnt meet that criteria of the ordinance. The project, although compatible with the mixed character, does not prescriptively conform with the height scale forms and architectural details of the entire surrounding neighborhood, as the neighborhood itself is quite mixed. The project, although it did add density, it did not add affordability equal to or greater than the existing building being demolished. So it wouldnt be approvable under that criteria. And the units, although similarly sized and with similar exposure, full floor flat plus down, and the other is floor floor unit and up, it exceeds the cap placed in the ordinance. Both roughly 2,000 square feet each. And lastly, the project includes the garage, which is also prohibited un