Thursday, march 5, 2020. I would like to remind members of the public to silence your mobile devices that may sound off. When speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. I would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] commission richards has first under your, on your agenda, is consideration of ims proposed for continuance. Item 1, case 2019001455cua, 1750 wawona street, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance. Item 2, 2019003900drp, 1526 masonic avenue proposed for continuance. Item 3, 2019017837prj proposed for indefinite continuance, and item 4, 20154109, 33 12th street has been withdrawn. Item 12, the Hazardous Materials Management Procedures informational presentation is proposed for continuance to march 19, 2020. Items 13a and b for case numbers 201913cuavar proposed for continuance to april 30, 2020. Under your discretionary review calendar, items 15a and b, case numbers 2825drp at 780 kansas street has been withdrawn. And the variance
Child Care Planning and advisory council. I am here to speak in favor of the child care facilities because there is a huge requirement in the city. We have currently just on the citys low income list 3,000 children who we have no space for. We have no facilities for. It is one of the Biggest Challenges that the city is facing in terms of being able to provide adequate child care. One of the things that is especially desirable about this facility that it is on the ground floor. That means we would be our people would be able to serve infants and young toddlers who would be about three months probably to 18 months. Currently in two of our facilities and we are opening up another one in the fall, but we cannot serve infants and toddlers because they are not on the ground floor. There is a very big need just within our program. We have 110 children on the wait list for infants and young toddlers. You can see that there is a great need and kind of one of my mottos we can never do enough for
Thats in general protection of the property. There are concerns about how this work is going to be done, given that breaking up the concrete in this particular way is a little bit more invasive, doing it onsite than it would otherwise be for cages where you normally just put rocks into the cages. Do you dispute the design they have come up with is compliant with the building and planning code . Yes. We would not be here otherwise. So what part of the Building Code does it violate . I believe its stated in our brief, and i believe mr. Paul can attest to better. We took issue with some of the engineering calculations and what was submitted in that regard. I dont think thats in the brief, actually. He has a if you would like to hear from our from an engineering standpoint theres no question pending. The design process its okay. I think you have a part in the brief here. I did have a question, ms. Raphael, if you did have a settlement, and you did have this design for five years, why was t
Able to get folks downtown quickly on the t, then the need for parking wouldnt be there. We understand that the lots there are full. Like many San Francisco neighborhoods to get a parking spot in this area you need to drive around. I have that situation. I had a car until three years ago when i said it is a pain in the butt. Finding parking is hard. I was fortunate to be in a situation to get rid of the car. A lot of folks dont have that. We are also looking at a situation that goes what do we want to prioritize . Parking spots are homes for people. At the end of the day it does frankly suck that is a tradeoff we have to figure out because parking does take up space. When trying to figure out these crazy priorities in the city, there is a lot of give and take. We absolutely understand that the desire for more parking at the site, but when looking at everything and looking at the big picture, we would argue building more homes should take priority over those requests. We ask that you do
But its hard when you dont when its a very, very steep site. Drop off from the street is immense here. Its hard to figure out where its going to impact the light. I want to stress, its really the light. Its really the light. You have the pictures about how dark it is in this building already. And this building behind it is a complication. And this is from the second level, the ground level looks straight out on a wall. There are only two levees in this house. Ms. Hester. And it has a wall in front of it. Thank you. Commissioner fung. Im sorry, but since its the focus on light, then we need to define it. There is no direct light going into that window. Its south of this project. The permit. So there is no direct light. Is there ability to have some reflected light there perhaps . You know . Its going to be relatively dark on that window anyway. We cannot keep having comment from the crowd, please. Im prepared to make a motion. I accept staffs recommendation and will not take d. R. And a