Skip to main content

We're fighting for the future of our library in court. Show your support now!

tv   [untitled]    May 19, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT

6:00 pm
and it seeped agrejouse to add -- seemed agrejouse to add another floor. they put a rubber stamp. number one, this is a very narrow and short street, one block long. number two, this is a very narrow lot, 20 feet wide only. 93% of this buildings except the ones facing jones and sacramento are two to three stories on the garage. they are not tiny little lots like this one. finally, very importantly, the rear yard have very substandard. it goes to within if four feet and to add more -- the four feet and to add more it sense. they didn't touch the fourth
6:01 pm
floor. absolutely ignored what commissioner sugaya said and what the neighborhood said. more importantly they pulled back by 15 feet and they act that it takes care of it because a pedestrian walking by can't see it. i'd like you to look at two pictures that i put in the letter i sent. one is a very nice picture of a plen did san francisco street, mason street just two blocks showing a nice step down, the way a street ought to look. here's our street with their story polled. and i've outlined in dark black what it would do to break the continuity of the street. you can't see it because it's almost vanished. i'd like to point out what it does to the rear neighbors. ahmad told you he did this to open up all the light and everything. take a look at this picture taken by ms. carol lowes and ask yourself how you would like
6:02 pm
to live looking at this all day long. it is not the pedestrians that have a stock. there are scores of neighbors who have windows, who look out these windows all the time. and is this what you want them to see? do you want it to be something like mason street which is a perfect example of what can be done. we are willing to compromise. you can put one story in this building and you'll have an additional unit. then everybody will be happy. >> thank you. elsa dickson, milly lom, jennifer sullivan followed by ellen barryingham. >> i'm elsa dickson. i live there for more than 20 years. knot hill is a famous historic district that attracts tourists from all over the world to its beauty. i see people outside my building looking opposite the
6:03 pm
beautiful flowers that we have. and we work very hard on our building ry to keep it to its original forum. we've gone to old photographs to try to replicate how it looked when it was built after the 1906 earthquake. i do believe that putting -- doing the work that the neighbors are requesting would compromise or even ruin the skyline of knot hill. it's -- it's such a beautiful, historic neighborhood and it would break my heart to see that and also on a personal level, i have to say that i'm a writer. i'm not a hobbyist. i've had several new york time best-sellers. having construction very disrup to my work. i know it's a secondary issue but i do want to mention it.
6:04 pm
i do believe that adding to this building -- and i've gone on many times and looked at it. the beautiful progression of the roof top down the street would really be compromised. so i do respectfully ask that you do not permit these requested changes and i thank you very much. >> thank you. >> my name's milly lom. i represent a property that's on clay street, the back faces this project. and this building when you're standing in the back, there's a little porch stack and there's already not that much room between the back of that building or those buildings on pleasant as compared to clay. you can almost jump over the fence and be in their back
6:05 pm
porch. so it's very congested. you can't -- you feel like you can't breathe because there is already all these buildings and there's not enough circulation for air. the other thing is the impact would be light. the first floor of this building would be like living in a dungeon. so that's -- and then i look at it this way. for someone to add one more unit for their pleasure and disrupt everybody else that is so many units doesn't sound feasible. and that's all i have to say at this time. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm jennifer. >> oh, are you ready for me? >> i'm jennifer solomon, i own
6:06 pm
the building up to -- on 44 pleasant street. there's a copy of my two-page letter. i appreciate the changes the applicants have made. it has improved over what it was. i know it's hard to not have something that you really want and to have to give up those things away it's like changes with paper cuts, small changes at a time. a lot of homeowners oppose it because it's going to block the sun light. it will block my window. what i do object to is the fifth floor. my building related to the one up above which i did plan before is much lower so it's glass on the other two sides, doesn't block anybody.
6:07 pm
it would be disingenuous for me to object to their third floor. it won't have any negative impact to my building. i do have some photos, though, showing the view from -- with all the netting that they put up of my -- from my deck and my room that i would love to have you look at. i feel it's an precedent and an eyesore in the neighborhood. i also want to make sure that any permit approval they do issue contains some verbiage to come in later and add a deck so that something like that can't be approved with neighborhood hearing. if you did approve that fifth floor and then they came with an overthe counter deck, then we would be back to where we started. i'm sorry. i'm very nervous. this is a big deal to me. it's a third floor unit. it's kept to one floor.
6:08 pm
it will be certainly smaller than it was. it will create affordable housing unit which is what the city is looking for. i ask ha the project be kept over to three floors over the garage. and that they don't lose that third parking space. really to add this extra bit on top, this whole extra -- it's nice. will really block the air into my lower units. the lights it will materially change the enjoyment of the improvements on the top of my property the terrace and the glass room in there. while they've moved it away from the side, it's still the bulk of the building. yes, it's four feet over whatever they moved it away but it's still there at that height. austin was going to try to come. he had a meeting but he did enter into the record his objections. it affects him materially the
6:09 pm
down-slope neighbor. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> you have any questions? >> we may afterwards. >> hello, commissioners, my name is ellen bier mingham i'm here after waiting with an anxious of the drawings -- anticipation of the drawings. we're asking for the objection of the revision. what were the last points that were made at the last meeting? pleasant street is quaint little street. it's an alley. three stories of living space over this garage is consistent with the neighborhood and the neighborhood's character. there's a natural step down from each of the buildings. you can see from the drawing and i'll show you a picture here that the proposed roof line is not consistent with
6:10 pm
that. the lot is a substandard lot and it is very small. the architect and the project sponsor are asking you to supersize this project by doubling the number of stories. -- of living space. the developer offered up the deck because he could see things were not going their way. your instructions to the developer were to meet with the developers and come back with a proposal. so where are we now? after several reminders and prompting from mr. color, the architect finally met with the neighbors. this is the first and only legitimate meeting where neighbors could choose to attend at a legitimate time. the architect had four months to revise the drawings. we got them a week and a half ago to review them. many of us have full-time jobs and cannot spend the time that we need to evaluate this.
6:11 pm
it may perhaps be another delay tactic by the developer. while they address small concerns, they do not reflect the major points that were made above. and at the first meeting the drawings are still inconsistent with the neighborhood. the proposed roof line does not step down as do other buildings in the neighborhood. if air and light of all adjacent neighbors are still negatively effected. none of them have continuous living space, "continuous" being the keyword. it is not proportional to the sizes of the lot and building. given the fact that this is a small lot, it would be far more appropriate for them to by more lot. please reject this proposal. the architect and developer continue to waste not only your time but ours. this project will degrade the
6:12 pm
beauty of the neighborhood and affect our living. and here's the picture as it will come up on the screen. here's historicals that actually went up before the first hearing. they have -- here's the normal step line and here's the roof top that the developer is proposing. >> are there additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner ant -- antonini. >> i'm in favor of it for a few reasons. the first is that if you look at the way it's designed from the rendering in the front of the thing, it blends very well from the block just from the facial aspect. but if you look at adjacent properties you will see that there is an area of a fifth
6:13 pm
floor, partial fifth floor on the jennifer solomon property that's to the uphillside and it's essentially up the sight as you can see the picture with the rendering, it actually does step down a little from there. and it does step down from the front edge of her upper floor to allow views out of her windows from what i can tell there. and that seems to be front me and also there is a smaller structure on the -- the house that's to the down hillside. i think this is property. i think they've gone along way particularly to address the concerns of the neighbors on clay street which are the most impacted because the impaction on the adjacent neighbors are mostly view issues where as there actually -- can be some -- could be some shadow issues
6:14 pm
on the clay street side. although they have brought that structure in a bit to minimize a bit as was pointed out by the project sponsor and his shadow study show the impact which i don't feel is significant enough not to approve the project. so i think it's well done and i'm in favor of it. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i'd like to first thank project sponsor for making some changes. however based on my previous comments, i think that has it gone far enough? as i commented before, i think that -- i don't mind the addition of the fifth floor. i think it's too big, however. and if you compare council member tatiana kostanian: the penthouses that are on the adjacent properties, if you took about half of it off then it would be comparable and it would be within the neighborhood character. just looking at the plan -- i do have one question before
6:15 pm
going on though, in the presentation with by project sponsor they mentioned that tell vaytor was removed yet, we have elevators showing on these plans. >> i can -- i can answer that. our effort really concentrated -- we were focusing on the upper floors. i'm sorry the elevator still shows on the few lower floor drawings but that's just a drafting error. in fact, it states inside that the elevator's gone. >> what are you going to put that space? >> we're going to relay the kitchen and the bathroom. >> all right. thank you. i think i was more comfortable if the upper floor were reduced by removing the area that's devoted to the dining and kitchen and given that you can reconfigure the floor plan between the two floors to see what you can get. i think you can still retain two bedrooms out of the three and have a fairly comfortable
6:16 pm
living unit there. so that would be my -- i'll make a motion to take d.r., approve the project -- >> it's conditional use. >> so you approved the c.u. with the upper floor being the size of what's being shown as the current living area. >> second. commissioner antonini. >> ok. i was going to ask mr. crawford for a comparison of the relative size, if you vu that of the the fifth floor structure that's to the up hillside as to the proposed fifth floor of this project. >> i don't have the size of the neighbors. >> not that it makes that much difference. i guess the only reason i would be opposed to the motion is that if there were a demonstrateable impact and although this is not a d.r.
6:17 pm
hearing, i realize but we still have to use the same concepts. what are we trying to make other than to constrict the size of their dwelling unit? i don't see any impacts that have been demonstrated. i think it's appropriate as it was designed in the latest rendition the project sponsor did. >> i'd argue that it's a neighborhood character issue and if you look at 1.1 of the architect's presentation, the penthouses on either side are shown the penthouses that are shown as larger on lots that are are one away from the two adjacent properties, i believe are bigger because they actually are on quite larger buildings and have a lot more units in them. so if you take what's shaded on the adjacent properties, i think they're approximately equivalent to what the living room area is proposed to this
6:18 pm
particular project. project sponsor, could i ask you a question? in regards to the suggestion by commissioner sugaya, do you have any feelings about that? >> thank you for asking that question, commissioner antonini. there are conflicting things here. without putting words in people's mouths, i think the -- ms. solomon's objection is the front porch of the edition. and the other is the entirety of the edition and the clay street folks are of course objecting to the back. i'm not sure if removing the back parts of the edition is going to resolve the objection. the other thing i have to say is in truth -- you must look at the rendering and see from street -- from the street, it is entirely within character and from above it is entirely within character.
6:19 pm
and i have a rendering of the finished product here for me to look at. i'm closer here if you wish. >> could i see that if you want to put the latest rendering up. let's see. there it is. that would be great to see because i think you can get a better idea. i'm not so sure. i guess the character of the neighborhood, i mean, as seen from pleasant street, obviously, you do not see these upper, these fifth floors. if you're high enough to look down on them, you will see them. but there are a series of areas that have fifth floors along that street. and i don't know that this would make any difference on the character of the neighborhood. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, i'll just responding somewhat. my position -- i don't have any other questions here for the architect. it's not based on people's views.
6:20 pm
i really don't care if the neighbor's views get blocked or not. and the positioning of the space doesn't have to be, you know, where the living room is currently. i'm just saying space. an equivalent number of square footage and the height can be placed wherever the architect feels that it would work best and whether that's towards the front with the balcony or toward the rear or whatever, that doesn't matter to me either. so i'm just saying that at the fifth floor, we have something that's about the equivalent in size, height and whatever is the current living room and that that space can be placed wherever they want on that elevation. >> do we have motion -- should i call the question? oh, commissioner antonini. >> just in looking at the plans here and i guess what i'm hearing from commissioner
6:21 pm
sugaya is to take off what's marked as the living room. >> no, i'm saying take off the back. >> the equivalent of what would be the -- >> marked dining room here. >> yeah, dining and the kitchen. >> it's part of the kitchen. >> so if you draw a line from the light well or the pantry across horizontally, looks like kind of -- half of what -- half the size. >> approximately. >> i'm in agreement with staff who is supportive of the project. >> right. >> could i ask for some clarification, commissioner? >> you would run a line straight across from the back of the light well and exclude that area and then that's the area you're talking about? >> yes. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioners the motion on the floor is for approval as
6:22 pm
modified with the adjustment that commissioner sugaya has modified. is that the same as the upper floor -- to be the size of the current living area? ok. with that reduction that you've outlined to staff? >> right. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commission 234er gordon? >> aye. >> commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. and motion passed on a 5-1 vote with commissioner antonini voting. thank you, commissioners. you are now on item number 16.
6:23 pm
>> good afternoon, president olague and commissioners. this is an annual office allocation project to eliminate a condition of approval requiring that ground floor assembly space and upper floor office space be leased to a nonprofit organization at below market rate. the commitment of the space to a nonprofit was made voluntarily by the sponsor at the time. the space was intended to be offices for spur which has since constructed offices at an alternative location. the project is within the 500 s districts. the original project is for the construction of a 33-story building with 550,000 square feet of office space, 4,000 square feet of assembly space. the revised project changed -- oh, i'm sorry -- the building has been cruct and occupied and
6:24 pm
continues to comply with the f. ampt r. and the other applicable planning code requirements. the property owner has been seeking nonprofit tenants since 2008. and has not found an organizations that are available within a five-block radius of the sight. the project will not displace a nonprofit organization and the nonprofit space was voluntarily reserved, reck mensds the modification -- recommends modification. i'm available for questions. >> thank you, project sponsor. >> commissioner, andrew genius for the properties. i'm not going to belabor the points. the material is very clear. we've enjoyed working with them on this. it's very civil. it was specifically designed for spur at a time we thought
6:25 pm
they were going to go into that building. the spurs are in their wonderful knew home at 565 mission. we've been working very hard and it's time to release this space. with the trance way terminal going on, with the wonderful plaza, a good retail use, likely a food use frankly. at this space, it's going to be a great edition no the plaza, a great edition. otherwise this space is going to sit vacant. i don't think there's not too much for it. thank you very much. >> i'd like to open it up for public comment. >> good evening, commissioner, gabriel metcalfe, executive director for spur. i'm here to support the project applicant. it didn't work out to be in the
6:26 pm
building. we're very happy. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore? commisioner moore: should they be as successful taking both spaces, i don't see any reason not to approve. so move to approve. >> commissioner antonini? >> i was going to speak to it. there is a retail in that area and that would help a lot. >> there's a motion on the floor for approval on that? >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. it has been approved unanimously. you are on item 17 a and b. there's been a request from the
6:27 pm
supervisors to continue this item for three weeks. >> so we'll hear the continuance at this time. >> any speakers in support of the continuance? whoever would like to speak either for or against. >> good evening, commissioners. steve on behalf of the project sponsor. at noon today we are agreeable to a two to three week continuance at the request of the supervisor. i understand your calendar is busy. >> july 7th -- >> i would like to rearrange the schedule for a two-week continuance. >> july 7 is the next date that we can actually hear it. july 7 would with the next day that we can hear it. >> we would request a two to three week continuance. >> it's not even up to us, really. our calendar is just completely -- >> closed. >> it's closed.
6:28 pm
it's really. i mean, on june 9, we're hearing it's just outrageous. i'm looking at the advanced calendar now and truthfully all the hearings are closed. -- until july 7. that's the soonest we can hear this item. >> i would like to point out that this matter was continued for 10 weeks in march. the association had plenty of time to bring forward their proposal. it happened this week. so it's very upsetting to the project sponsor to have a 10-week continuance and then another month continuance when this project's been ready to go. >> we'll be voting whether or not to even continue it. but if we do continue it, it will be to july 7 because that's the first open date we have on the calendar. is there any additional public comment? >> i'm the project sponsor and
6:29 pm
i would oppose a continuance if it's going to be for that date. >> ok. >> is there any additional public comment related to this continuance? related to the continuance? continuance only. we're just speaking to the continuance to this item at this time. >> my name is robert frankel, i'm with rushing hill neighbors. we would be for the continuance due to the fact that we sent everybody home at 12:00. we sent out e-mails and did facebook changes to our sight. so, you know, from here from the beginning that they were requesting a continuance -- yeah, would we be in favor of appear continuance with one step lation. if you speak about the project if you would give us a better understanding of how we could continue, you know, to come together with the developer --