Have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Does any member of the public have any Public Comment on the items requested for continuance . With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner koppel . Move to continue items one and two. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue the items as proposed. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. Placing is under commission comments and questions. Commissioner moore . I read an interesting article in the journal speaking about demolition versus deconstruction in the city of palo alto. They have joined or taken the example from portland where the demolition of homes is not just simply a demolition anymore, but it is a systematic destruction of the structure to reuse, recycle, and alleviate excessive landfill due to demolition. This particular piece of legislation is going to affect how going to be in effect in palo alto in 2020 and affect commercial and residential buildings. It w
To be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. Items after today will appear on july 23 agenda. All right. We please read the first item. Item number 8 ordinance amending the planning code to require building setbacks for buildings fronting on narrow streets, modify front yard requirements in residential districts, increase required rear yards in singlefamily Zoning Districts by five percent, amend the rear yard requirements for through lots and corner lots in certain districts to permit second buildings where specified conditions are met, and allow Building Height increases to existing stories in existing nonconforming buildings in order to accommodate residential uses; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and general welfare under p
The land use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco board of supervisors for today monday july 15. Our clerk is ms. Major. Please make sure to silence all cell phones. To be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. Items after today will appear on july 23 agenda. All right. We please read the first item. Item number 8 ordinance amending the planning code to require building setbacks for buildings fronting on narrow streets, modify front yard requirements in residential districts, increase required rear yards in singlefamily Zoning Districts by five percent, amend the rear yard requirements for through lots and corner lots in certain districts to permit second buildings where specified conditions are met, and allow Building Height increases to existing stories in existing nonconforming buildings in order to accommodate residential uses; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consi
But what it means is it creates an allowance of time for people to exit from the building. It means that a fire that occurs in the building is less likely to spread to an adjacent building or vice versa. If fire occurs in an adjacent building, it may not be able to make it to the building youre in. At least within that onehour period of time. I have one more question this site permit process, if i may ask we talk roughly about the side permit process. And planning now see it as a lot more work that has to be done, plan check. Do we have really any understanding how much more work and plan check is going to be created by, you know, basically removing the side permitting process, as we know it as it is today . Im going to turn this over to cyril yu, and he would probably have a better answer for you. And as quick as you can, cyril, if you can we dont know how many revisions there are. It occurs during the site permit. They establish the building envelope. So im going to let liz talk abou
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 planning code, which are handled t