Representatives from the city departments with cases before the board this evening. We have the administrator planning the Planning Commission and joseph duffy, senior building inspector. The Board Meeting guidelines are follows. The boards turnoff and silence electronic devices. Appellants and Department Respondents have 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated must include the comments within this period. Members of the public not affiliated with the parties have three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please email the board staff at board of appeals at sfgovtv. This is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on friday. It is available on the website and downloaded from sfgovtv. Org. We will swear in or affirm those who will testify. I will admit two people to the meeting. Please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to r
Were proposing two things. As the addition was pitched to us as a green room or garden room, a place to get direct sun light and do some light gardening, if that is the case, why not keep this front area open and make it sort of a green roof or terrace with plants . This would be more practical and intent for its intents and purposes. This solution would eliminate all concern about the new mass and the topography of the street. This would be a large green area, sunny and exposed, where they could take care of plants. If this solution seems too radical, we would like the project to get a larger set back from the street. Maybe this should be revisited. Also, the height of the building, while under the 35foot limit, should be adjusted on either side. Simply being in line and simply being in line with current roof from the previously addition seems to make a lot of sense and be less disruptive to the street. We do have four other neighbors on our side of the street who feel similarly to us
You have heard from the neighbors. For the past four years we have been abused by manipulations and false measurements and development to seek the vastly increased size of the existing house and squeeze another house on the property. Last july responding to wide ranging misrepresentations and inappropriate revisions the Planning Commission by 51 vote issued discretionary review ordering the full restoration of the existing three story bay window on the south side of the home. This was critical action. Full restoration of the three story bay restores the home to original design. It is important to note the 25 25 17th avenue occupies two lots. With the three story bay extends to both lots. By eliminating the window they can squeeze another house into that lot. To our great dismay on january 20, 2020, six months after the Planning Commission with the 51 vote the city approved the Building Permit based to the revised architectural plan for partial restoration of the bay. Two of the origina
Excused today. Commissioner paulson. Here commissioner rivera excused. Commissioner stacy. Here. We have a quorum. Members of public make up to 2 minutes of remote public on an item dialing 4155540001. Access code 2591 574 6761 to rid your hand press star 3. Speakers will hear a choim had 30 seconds remaining and another chime when the 2 minutes have expired. You must limit your comment to the topic discussed upon if you dont stay on the topic the chair may ask to you limit your comment to the item. Public comment made in a civil and respectful. Mute, thank you. Thank you. Public comment med in a civil and respectful manner. Address remarks to the commission not to individual commissioners or staff. On behalf of the commission thanks to sfgovtv staff and puc staff for assist analysis. For those present, if you have in the done so silence your electronic device. The dial in number is 4155540001. Access code 2591 574 6761. Raise your hand to speak please, press star 3. On todays engaged
Be glad to go through the changm the october draft to the novembt and give a brief explanation one made the change and why its ree to the motion and perhaps that d help jump start the discussion. Chair keane does that help commissioner kopp . Yes. First change that we made wao section 1. 126 which is the ban n contribution from caters to off contractors to official officiae the contract to the city. We strengthen the notification n located in section 1. 126f in te ordinance, the concern raised be commission is persons subject tn may not know they are and unwity violate it. So they want to help ensure thal persons subject to this rule knt they are. Generally speaking, the way thid work is that the City Department issues a request for bids wouldo notify potential bidders that te rules that they would be subjecf they submit a bid to the city be 1. 26 applies to bidders not juss with a contract already. That would give the entity or pn notice that these rules exist. Then once the City Depa