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
Attorney who will provide legal advice this evening. At the controls is the boards Legal Process clerk and i am julie, the boards executive director. We will be joined by 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
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
Offices or labs. Another building was approved, a large building was approved for ucsf on the south side of 16th street was sold to dropbox as their headquarters, and they are taking over a building at a location that planning thought was going to be a large medical building. And this building additionally had illegal it had an enforcement action against it because the tire shop owner rented to a person who used [ inaudible ] so im asking the Planning Commission to goesimpa condition that all plans for the interior improvements have to be routed to the Planning Department and evaluated in terms of the use as office because ive been talking to the Zoning Administrators Office about their chart of office uses, and i questioned why this project wasnt on there. And they said well, if they apply if they change the use to be office under the planning code, they will have to get an Office Allocation. Im a citizynical about that, i think that tells you that you have to be paying attention to t