Rather than a static sculpture and do some vital programming for the programs and families that are going to be moving into the area. We support this project and the market octavia amendment. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am a hays valley resident and a longterm supporter of market and octavia. When this was coming up and talking about 400foot towers, they would say you support this . Yes, i do. This is the transit hub. So to much criticism from some people, i was an aggressive supporter of all of this. I think some of what concerns me about this in addition to some technical points and the points raised by the other speakers about the adequacy of muni and other things like that for services, when the proposal to raise some of the 400foot towers was first voiced, it was look at the esthetic of this tower with 400foot towers. We can do thinner, elegant, beautiful, very tight and its going to really look gorgeous. Well get some extra housing out of it. Isnt that good . Yeah, that so
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 disagreem
No, i wasnt. But i am very familiar with that section of the Building Code and thats been an enormous frustration. As a retired c. P. A. , im used to opining, but opining on financial matters. I get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103 a . I think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, its important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. Thank you for explaining that. The question i think is a real question. I would like to have an answer to it. We may not have that answer today. I would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. Thats the only comment of where i have Common Ground with your comments. I personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. But the building as a replacement building is too large. Th
Okay. Good afternoon and welcome to september 3, 2019 regular meeting of the San Francisco board of supervisors. Welcome back, supervisors. I guess we are going to have another exciting round of meetings. Until we take a break in the winter. Madame clerk we please call the. Clerk thank you, mr. President. [roll call] you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of america. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. So exciting to get started again. Okay, on behalf of the board i would like to acknowledge the staff of sfgovtv, jesse larson and jim smith who and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madame clerk, are there any communications . I have none to report, mr. President. We are approving the minutes from the july 9, 2019, july 16, 2019, and july 23, 2019 regular Board Meeting
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 disagreem