tv [untitled] May 4, 2012 11:30pm-12:00am PDT
you are capturing the majority of your recommendations, but i want to make sure that you go through this. >> i will be happy to do this. i usually listen to the hearing again. on the front part, that is the entire legislation and. that is the standard way we do it. commissioner moore: i do not see any reference to phase 2. >> when you get to the whereas's, it specifies what phase 2 is. on page two, all the way down at the bottom. commissioner moore: i am asking you to just check it one more time. thank you. >> i will second consistent to
our discussions. >> [inaudible] >> in the other questions? ok. >> the motion on the floor is for approval. staff has presented today and as you have understood it and recounted, the motion. i cannot restate that. i apologize. on that motion -- [roll call vote] that motion passes 6-1. commissioners, we are now at item 12b.
>> i move to recuse. >> second. >> i would like to hear a reason, please. >> due to a relationship that i have with the property at fisherman's wharf. this is within 500 feet of that property and address. thank you for asking. >> there is the motion and the second. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president fong: >> ok, these are d
amendments for the legislation. the first one deals with the washington-broadway special use district. the second one deals with the waterfront special used district. this would move certain parcels from sud 2 and 3, so they corresponded to some sub-areas. it would also take a few lots better not included and the waterfront sud. staff is recommending that the first part, which would move the boundaries of boundaries ofsud to correspond with the general plan out of the legislation at the request of the port. we do not feel it is necessary. they fill it complicates the waterfront sud design process. and we agree with that. the second part, which would
could a couple of blocks into the -- it creates more consistency in that section of the city. the broadway in special sign district, it can be kind of confusing. there is a description of the district that limits it to the broadway st. on the north east side of columbus. unfortunately, when they changed that, they did not change the map. what this legislation does is to correct the error. it is not a substantial change, but he brings consistency. i believe those are all the changes we took out. the van ness will be heard on
the phase three. >> thank you. is theirere public comment on this item? >> i just -- the changes to the broadway sign district, we had a meeting at their request that we clarified this. before the rezoning in the 1980's was c2. it also ended up in the sign district. the code was written, so it only applies for some of those parcels along broadway. the zoning map was not changed. when we met with land developers, they suggested, we have our special sign controls in chinatown.
they felt like this broadway sud is incompatible with where they want to go with the neighborhoods and with the residential character. that is why it is curtailed. there is this corner that was added. if you look at the way the zoning districts lineup, there are to parcels on the north side. we are adding that to the waterfront sud3. they are in design district, the historic district, c2 district. now they will have all the same zoning controls as the adjacent. to strain on some historic discrepancies -- to straighten out some historic discrepancies. commissioner wu: any further
public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner miguel: in spite of trying to get your head around this, this is clarification of mistakes in the past more than anything else. unless someone can correct me on that. it creates consistency and i do not think makes any earthshaking changes, so i would move approval of staff's recommendations. >> i will second. commissioner antonini: that staff recommendation has declared the waterfront parcels out of the legislation. >> yes. >> do you have the overhead? thank you. >> this is the proposed -- some
of these parcels are in the waterfront sud3. we are asking they be kept in here. there're a couple of c2 lots that are not. we artist -- we are saying they should be added as part of the legislation. commissioner antonini: i understand that as part of the motion. >> in the staff report that we got, i believe the proposed conditions are different. >> that is correct. our oasis team was not able to put together the map in time. >> the larger amount is correct? >> the larger map is the correct one.
my understanding is that the request and the project sponsor have meant an come to an agreement to resolve, but the request for one of the commission to put the conditions on the dr itself. that is what it was not withdrawn. that is pretty much my presentation. >> [inaudible] >> i am going to move for a continuance. >> can we possibly take a 10- minute break? >> no, we are not taking a break. >> [inaudible]
>> we are going to start. we will keep going. >> i own the property behind this building. the three people who would be talking today the neighbors on both sides -- unfortunate, he will give the request that we have to try to put these into the plants. we made a concerted effort over the last month and a half to get together. at every instance along that way, we had obstacles, they did
not call back, they said we would come to the meeting. at this juncture, we wanted to come to you today, and to have a piece of paper that was an agreement between us that would say these are the things we want. we are willing to do them. one story i want to tell this court, we had a meeting to saturdays ago. we got to the meeting at 1:00. we said what about mr. lee. she said, he is parking the car. he never showed up at the meeting. we gave a whole list to look it over, let's talk about it before the hearing. the next time i talked to her was at 3:45 today. she is asking me, she is sorry, she did not know what we wanted. we have done everything we can
to try to get them to come together with us. none of the things we're asking for it are outrageous. that is my story. we have tried. i am not trying to defend these people or say they are bad people, -- defame these people or say they are bad people, but i have never seen people do business the way they do business. when they say they will do one thing, they do something else. that is my story. >> i am sorry. i was asked to sit in on the meetings because things have been jury difficult -- things have been very difficult. relations between the three
neighbors. i sat in on one meeting -- she is the resident on the eastern side. the subsequent meeting that was just referenced, also with mrs. lee and the other two neighbors. we had a very detailed list of items that we've interested in. today, i received a document called the proposed changes and they appeared to encompass major points that were referenced. very quickly, the primary concern was no deck on the eastern side. that is shown on the new drawings that were said to me. smaller windows on their rear north side. one of the concerns, gutters be
applied to rooftops. smaller window, that appears to have been mapped on the drawings that i saw. the only issues i saw that were still not clearly addressed or specifically addressed on the drawings, but maybe there, the lillegal curb cut that was made. there is no need for a curb cut. they are restoring the bay to the original condition. the entire block has granted curbs. when they restored, they use the
original materials. it was a little bit frustrating that we did not see the drawings until early this afternoon. it would have been good had we seen them, but my perception is that the drawings that we were given today represent the major issues. i think we are very interested in seeing this resolved effectively and having this property began healing and restoration. i know there have been very harsh feelings and these have been very trying and difficult, but that is my perception. >> thank you very much. speakers in favor, you have three minutes.
>> just leave it up there, i will get it. >> ok, representing the applicants. sorry that i am a little bit late. there are about 50 people in line out front to get into the building. what i've outlined is what we have requested. we have gone over each item with the project sponsor's wife on the 21st. it seemed the reached an agreement for the most part. unfortunately, we could not get agreement in writing, but this reflects our conversation. i am submitting, requesting the
dr be taken and as many of these conditions that you can legally impose be applied. we support the application. we want the approval to go forward. we want to see this dilapidated building that is an eyesore to the community cleaned up. we believe in supporting good business, putting people to work. i'm cleaning of the neighborhood. -- and cleaning up the neighborhood. i think the things we're asking for here are pretty fair and reasonable. we backed away from some other items that we originally requested, at which would have been more onerous, including increasing the size of their rea yard rear -- the rear yard.
we hope that you will take dr and applied as many of these conditions. the history speaks for itself. we have tried for a year and a half to get some level of cooperation. i am sure you have heard from at least one of the neighbors. we cannot get there. rather than leave it hanging in the hands of the project sponsor, we do not want them to submit plans that will not be reflective of this agreement.
unfortunately -- hopefully, by doing this, it will put us on the path of being good neighbors and working together. thank you. >> in the other speakers in favor -- any other speakers in favor? project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> we have met with all three neighbors. on the east side, west side, in the back. we discussed what their issues were. his dog barked as it runs along the walkway and may see a
window, one of us in the building by the window. we agreed to raise the window higher, even though it is more expensive to do so. we have accommodated his request. as far as the daughters and the back, -- gutters in the back, that is part of the building process. her concern was that she did not want any deck in the back. she was very adamant about it. i mentioned to her that the banmboo tree can provide the privacy already. she replied that she did not
care. she would fight as for what ever it took. we took out the deck to accommodate her. gerald said that he was fine with our plan. he had received a judgment from a gentleman years back and the judgment calls for the property line was 6 inches wider. he wondered us to take that out. i do not know -- he wanted us to take that out. i do not know how to do that. i am not sure if we are able to do such a thing.
we purchased the property, but i am not sure if we can legally inherits all the rights. this list, i think we have been very diligent, taking time to meet with all three of them. address all their concerns. we did not know that we had to call them again and again to make plans for them. i thought they knew that from years past. he has built 10 buildings, so he must know this. we may be able to accommodate some of this list, but this can
be ongoing. i think it is wrong to have neighbors to come out with this sort of demands all the time. i think it is a wrong message for the commission to send that you can require neighbors to comply, even though everything we do is legal. everything we want is just to move forward, to make this building better. and to add a unit. i am not sure if we are able to quickly review everything to say yes, we can move forward. i ask, please, let us move
forward. this plan has been here before you for months and months and we have been here three times already. we have made every effort to communicate, to e-mail, to meet with them. we can all disagree as to how many times we can meet to address an issue, but i think we should move forward. we need your blessing to just go on and not the stock like this. thank you. -- be stuck like this. thank you. >> speakers in favor of the project sponsor. there is one speaker in favor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a co-owner of the
property. we have been behind them every step. i am witness to the amount of can -- an indication that has come forward. -- communication that has gone forward. there have been reasonable requests from them to incorporate some changes in our structure. we are willing to do so, but within reason. it is a lot of time, in a lot of energy spent and not the best way. we are willing to work with them on this, but we need some cooperation. to meet halfway.
the things that have been asked for comment a change from time to time. i reached out to our neighbors and said, i understand this seems to be -- i think this was october the year before last. we got a list of things they wanted to change. we submitted that to the city. we have made our best efforts to reach out and incorporate what they wanted. we want to see this project before word. thank you. >> additional speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> thank you. i think we are over the he said- shesaid at this point. the reports its belt -- the
report speaks for itself. they submitted fraudulent plans. they were told to resubmit them. they have been given plenty of notices of violations. they have failed to cure any of them to date. the record speaks for itself. i do not think i need to engage in some of the misrepresentations been aimed at us. all we're asking for, everything on this list, we discussed with valerie. her husband was supposed to be there, it took him the better part of two hours to find parking. be that as it may, there is no surprise. we are not pulling any punches under the belt. the biggest item that we were requesting, that we gave up on, we pulled it out. everything else is reasonable. with respect to itemn
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on