Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 27, 2013 8:30pm-9:01pm PDT

8:30 pm
hearing has been closed but this item is still in front of us. >> thank you, i want to acknowledge the work of our community and also i forgot mention our board member that are here today brian smith and president david, it's not just the services. it's the fact that this is a forum that brings the community neighborhood together. the form a lone will not bring the community together, but the businesses, that is the way to move forward. what i appreciate about the cbd and the concern is that they may serve one sector of our neighborhood. it's great to see that the cbd has been working with our seniors and tech companies. it's also great to have a conscientious of small business owners and someone who can make
8:31 pm
a lot more of this building and choosing to rent out to art organizations and i just really appreciate that we have citizens such as that and of course all of our residents that volunteer with their time and also want to acknowledge the work that many of these made who have made an amazing enhancement of that neighborhood. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you. i would like to chime in that there was a while back that i was a legislative aid and in 2007 we helped to establish the market district. i want to acknowledge and congratulations folks of the community to moving forward and moving on to adolescence or maturity for the cbd. one of the things that i was happy to hear is that there is still a high level of services for low
8:32 pm
income people that are part of the cbd as part of the effort to make this community beautiful. i will look forward to voting in support of this. >> thank you, colleagues, are there any other comments? okay, with regard to the expansion, the department of elections will be tabulating results and we'll let people know when those results are in. with that madam clerk can be go back to item 33, 34. >> yes, mr. president, for the top way broadway benefit community district. the run weighted ballots was 56.6 percent with the return voting against district was 43.84
8:33 pm
percent. indicating there was no majority protest. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues given that there has not been a majority protest fieshlgsd -- filed, i would request we call the roll. this is something that i have been working or. particularly along the corridor for various businesses for what they have done and ask for your support on this. >> please call the roll. >> item 44, avalos, aye, breed aye, campos, aye, chiu, aye, supervisor cohen, aye, supervisor ferrel, aye, kim, aye, mar, aye, supervisor tang,
8:34 pm
aye, wiener, aye, yee, aye. >> the resolution is adopted. as i said before, as soon as we get the results back for the central market cbd, we will announce them. madam clerk please call the final special items 47-50. >> the clerk: commission decision on a major permit to alter oh 706 mission street. as well as seismic up grades of the building. new construction. item 48 is the motion a firming to alter. item 49 motion to reversing the approval of the
8:35 pm
historic preservation, item 50, motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings to reverse . >> a major permit is required to be demolition to a building or building in a conservation district which a permit is required. the hdc considers the design, texture, materials, color and other pertinent factors. section 1113 of the planning code detail these in related to considerations. for today's hearings we'll first hear from the appellants who have up to 10 minutes in total for grounds to their appeal. we'll take public comments on
8:36 pm
behalf of their discussions. we'll hear from tenants following planning's presentation we'll hear from the project sponsor who will have 10 minutes to present and we'll hear from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the sponsor and finally the appellants will have 3 minutes. if there are no objection to proceeding this way, let me ask supervisor kim if you have any opening remarks? without any remarks, let's go to the hearing. first to the appellants. >> thank you members of the board of supervisors. i represent the appellants in this appeal. i'm going to cease most of people time while i
8:37 pm
retail to look at the fees ability with related to the ceqa finding. i want to make a point about the article 11 issues. you are being asked to consider that a building is being attached and to a conservation district where the predominate scale is 33 stories. think about that from a common sense standpoint. it doesn't make any sense and think about it more importantly from a policy stantd standpoint. you are being asked to nullify the scale of the zone 11 which is part of your zoning code. i will ask you not to do that because you will defeat a major article 11. this
8:38 pm
building is part of the process of destroying that character of this conservation district. i want to give you one more letter to add to your stack which is a letter dated today and i'm going to turn it over for assessment >> good afternoon, board of supervisors, my name is eric assess man. i teach courses in finances and real estate and i work in real estate. i was retained to assess the eps report and the peer review that supported the project as proposed. i tell students in my mba classes that output model is as good as input. i tell them to make sure when there is assumptions when they play variables and how to numbers
8:39 pm
might change. i tell them the most important thing in any model or fees ability is data, objective significant data. i tell them the data should be speaking for them as opposed to them speaking on behalf of the data. the eps reports violates a lot of these principal. they use flaws and some cases there is lack or omission of data and they cherry pick the data to result the outcomes and they have no sensitivity analyses. there is really' lack of consistency in alternatives. it critical when you look at alternatives to fees ability that you do apples comparison. i thought we would focus on the key variables which results on the output and conclusions. first is unit size. we have made a lot of the hey over the unit size. when you are
8:40 pm
building condominium size it's tough to compare. it's going to be a 58 story tower. you build to maximize unit. any project is going to build larger units to maximize profit. i don't deny that it's the right square footage. in a high rise of 59 stories you can afford to have a mix of units or 47 strichls -- stories. you can have mixed units. the second is the right price per square foot. i was taught in from high school math, they are pull data from
8:41 pm
1998 to 2013. for anyone to argue that 1998 condominium prized data is relevant is absurd. we looked at a ton of data from 2001-2013 in all comparables. they made a lot in different resale and development resale. that's a really false comparison to me. if you look at the original developer sales they range from 1998 until the millennium sold out. the millennium one project was constructed in 2009. even though no sales, when you look at the 2009 sales is absurd. i would encourage you to look at my exit one. a picture tells a thousand words. the data is unequivocal, very probative and
8:42 pm
very powerful. the other last point i will make about the prices is they argue at the peak of the market. which i laughed when i read that because if that's the case, why would they be selling units to the market. we base the value on the current market data. that's what you should do is the current market data. the data that i have even used is understated and conservative in prices that continue to increase. the third assumption has to do with the four plate size. the issue is is consistency. being consistent with the two alternatives with the project to propose, the two shadow alternatives, they themselves have agreed with me. the impact on the res dual value is $52 million. the project isn't feasible even with that $2 million adjustment. if you look at the other figures, suddenly it
8:43 pm
becomes feedable. ficht efficiency of design, any project want to be efficient with the square feet as possible. that's common sense. modern high rises and developments are 80 percent. you talk to anybody who is doing construction in any urban environment they will tell you that 80 percent is the magic number. they use 76 percent, the impact is to reduce the shadow alternatives in feasible. they have cherry picked their data. finally the development return, they feel they need an 18 percent return. i feel it's an environment where construction loans are between 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 percent that they provide the information that requires a return. 15 percent is more than adequate given the risk of this
8:44 pm
project, urban airfield, san francisco, as tom said, use your common sense. we know this is a relatively lower project when it comes to real estate ground developments. i would refer you to my last table 5 of my initial report where i run through the impact of all my change variables through the project residual. when you do that and look at those figures and even give the developer a return, the project for reduced shadow alternative is for $100 million. when you talk about a variable being high or low, when you look at the ultimate impact that the variability play with one another, this is a very profitable project when it reduced to shadow. i am sure if they were an approved if you an approved the 27 story building, they would still build it and they would make plenty of money and they would like to build it as high as
8:45 pm
they can. and i guess i will close with. again, they have made a lot out of my prices and my unit sizes. i pulled the same data they did. if you look at their table 4 and look at the numbers they pulled out themselves in item of prices and as they relate to the size of units, my figures are lower than their report. >> colleagues, any questions to the appellant? >> okay, seeing none at this time let hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of this appeal. any member of the public wish to speak in support of this appeal? okay. seeing none, let's go to the planning department who has 10 minutes for the grounds of the ch p's approving. if you can turn on
8:46 pm
your microphone. >> good afternoon, tim fry, department staff. my comment are brief. that in sum the planning department recommends the board alter for 706 mission street. as you know this criteria, the commission uses article 11 and standards. these criteria are not predescriptive and they are meant to be in evaluate iv framework which many options can be weighed and many results can be chooed -- achieved to show compliance. it was in conform ance with the standards and an approved the project with conditions. to address just a couple of the appellants concerns in related to the addition, i want to
8:47 pm
clarify that while physically and programally attached, the tower purpose is not considered to the height of the historic building. article 11 language to the appellants, this language is consistent with article 11 and the secretary of interior standards. they found in proposition with the project will be consistent with the standards and in location withous be located adjacent to the building to avoid historic materials that characterize the property. the tower will be located on a rear elevation that has already been modified
8:48 pm
by early or non-historic positions. they agreed with this determination as the most logical position. finally to address the proposed height of the tour, there is nothing in the secretary of the standards or article 11 that dictate a specific height for a proposed tower. article 11 specifically acknowledges that there are a variety of heights in the district and article 11 goes further suggest that additional heights can be permitted above a street wall. the hc addresses to the tour and to the district and found the project to be in conformance. finally i wanted to mention if you do have any questions about the feasibility, kaiser is available to answer any questions. they were the peer reviewer of the study for the
8:49 pm
success or agency and they are also present to answer any questions. if you have any specific questions about the projector our analysis, our machine of staff are also present to address those questions as well. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you, this question might be for mr. prior to. this is my first time on the board hearing an appeal of a meteorology -- major appeal to alter this building. >> deputy city attorney, marlena, the standards setforth in article 11 for determining whether to an pprove a major permit to alter, essentially the hcp and this body as an
8:50 pm
appellate body needs to look at whether or not the proposed new construction and the changes that are being made to the building are compatible with the design and characteristics of both the erinson building and because this building is in the boundaries part of this building is in the boundaries within the conservation district and compatible with the major features and characteristics with the conservation district. more specifically, the project should be consistent with an appropriate for the effect using of the article 11 and that includes compliance with the interior standards which staff can provide more details in exactly how this come complies. this building is a category 1 significant building. the erinson building portion of the project. the procession has to be consistent
8:51 pm
with the architectural character of the building. additionally they can not damage or destroy any of the distinguishing original qualities or character of the building. the integrity of the distinctive stylistic features are examples of craft man shift have to be preserved. additionally if distinctive architectural features cannot be repaired, then they have to be replaced in kind wherever possible. contemporary designs and alteration are permitted however they can not destroy original features of the building and they have to be compatible in material, size and character of the building. there are few other requirements, but essentially it goes to distinctive features that have to be reattend. when you look at the compatibility
8:52 pm
of the conservation district, the general requirement is the scale and size of the buildings and the character defining features in the nominations ordinary that propose the district. those are the standards that this body applies. this body is doing a de novo review of the underlying approving with deciding to uphold the appeal and approve the major permit to alter by a majority vote. >> thank you, just to clarify in terms of economic studies and physical abilities study, how does this relate to this appeal. >> the way it relates is a little indirectly because the project would result in an unvoidable impact under ceqa. when you may have recalled the a pul for the eir that it would
8:53 pm
contribute to a manner to a cumulative impact to cause shadow on open space. because of that, the hpc and now this body if it chooses to uphold the hpc's decision and deny the appeal would have to adopt ceqa finding. those ceqa findings include statement of overriding consideration side which means that you find the proposed benefits of the environmental harm. it's a contribution to a significant and unavoid ability cumulative impact: so part of the finding that the planning commission made when it an approved the sed and recommended approval. zoning
8:54 pm
map amendments that the zoning heights would no longer cause a shadow to recreation and open space were financially in feasible. that's when it comesen. so even when the board has certified an eir to not uphold the appeal, in some ways aspect of the eir open up again when you appeal the history category permit? >> no, it's not quite like that. it's a little bit characterize differently. >> cab you sprain why you make these considerations? >> sure. they held that certification on appeal. what that means is that what this body found is the eir written accurately and adequately described this project. at this
8:55 pm
point we are not revisiting the conclusions that theeir reached as to whether certain impact will or will not result from this panel. because it identified significant and unvoidable impact in shadow. this body when it decides to take an approval action, it has to make certain findings based on the conclusion that the eir did. they are not what the ceqa did. what you would be doing now is uphold hchlp c's action is making ceqa approval finding which is that we read the eir and we under this project will have an up voidable impact to open space because of shadow. that's what
8:56 pm
the eir identified, but because of the other social reasons, we are choosing this project despite the significant and unvoidable impact. that's how they relate to each other >> thank you so much. i want to go back to mr. fry. history category issues are not my area of expertise. i would claim to know extensively about that. you mentioned that staff found it's tower is in conformance and i would like you to talk about that. >> from a lay person if you see a large glass tower, that would be different. can you tell us how you judge that conformity and how you relate old and new
8:57 pm
billions -- buildings and the process behind that. >> the commission looked at a variety of contextual factors when evaluating the compatibility of a new building especially as it with the unique situation here with this building being physically attached to the erinson building. standard no. 9 secretary of interior standards does not dictate that a new building must match. a historic building in terms of it's materiality and architectural features but rather reference them. one of the conditions added to the project by the historic preservation commission was they feld -- felt the building could relate to the building and that is something that is still being work on those phenol -- final
8:58 pm
details of the project. finding other buildings is a fairly common condition we see downtown. the commission not only looks at that broader context, but also the context within the immediate district. while there is a variety of different building heights, the historic buildings are yes within an 8 -story range. it doesn't probate -- prohibit a building being taller and from this conservation district does allow a building to go around the street wall. if it's using material where we a lot of brick building, the color remain in the same color or palette to be used in the same construction. set backs and pedestrian scale will also be
8:59 pm
referenced. many of the buildings have a try the apartheid, meaning a base and a capitol. the appendix encourages referencing that facade arrangement when evaluating contemporary structures. >> can you give us an example of buildings in the downtown areas that are in comparison to this? >> the first one coming to mind is one kearney. it's the old hmm bolt safety building. where the restaurant is located there. that is a 1984 building by two additions. the other one
9:00 pm
by charles more from the $1984 building by two additions. the other one by charles more from the late 1960s. >> thank you, i also wanted to acknowledge that kma is here as well. they are the consultant for the success or agency. i want to let members of the board know also if they wanted to ask questions. there are three different analyze on the fiscal fees ability of this project. i just want to animal -- acknowledge that it's very heart to predict that there is different ranges. i wanted to give the board an opportunity to ask questions if they like. >> thank