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 under this ordinance. Under section 319, just to sort of weave in all of the implication of this project, some of the criteria are redundant. It wouldnt be permitted under 319, as it adds a new garage. Architectural features are inherently, because its a demo, all of them are being removed. Thats a criteria that makes it prohibited from being approved. The project is less affordable. And the r
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
Progress. Aside from that, i would suggest a few things that i would like to see in the legislation. I would like to exempt cosmetic, nonstructural things like cladding from the demo calculations. I would like fines to fit, you know, the crime. I would like things in addition to fines, like process, to weed out bad actors. So we know who they are, we know they are there frequent flyers. We currently do not have a process that codified to disallow them to keep gaming the system, other than fines. I think we can do that through a process. I would like to have the demo calculations and additions to be more targeted to neighborhoods. I know we have resisted that, but really build housing is very different in Bernal Heights than it is in balboa terrace. The consequences of maxing out bulk and height are very different in those. I would encourage us to look at that. I would just end by saying, we in this commission see the most egregious things. That is what bubbles up to the surface. As som
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
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 consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and adopting f