Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 5, 2015 4:30pm-5:01pm PST

4:30 pm
new concerns the planning commission said there is a hearing in may you're welcome to attend and voice your opinion will let me know in you want to take pictures if our living room i invited him to get. >> sense of what i'm dealing with my main concern was the can we have more time we can have a course of action with the people next door. >> so your issue you didn't participate in the 311 notice. >> i wasn't allowed to participate in the neighborhood you outreach which were the only outreach. >> any future questions. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear. >> next speaker. >> from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners david silicon valley i'm working with the permit holders robert
4:31 pm
and vivian lee not here the owners and the architects of the project that is no a speck development it is where they and they're children live they've minimum minsz missed the height to the code and received the full support of the recommendation the planning department and received unanimous approval from the planning commission on a 6 to zero vote commissioner wu was absent i noticed katherine moore clearly expressed her opinions you have her quotes in the brief the project will be 10 feet lower than the height and set back of 15 and a half feet and contain two additional set back of 8 and 15 feet on the second and third levels from the rear facade the permit holders sent
4:32 pm
in letters from the adjacent neighbors and ms. murdock is a tenant of the adjacent building that has windows facing at about exterior courtyard she express those concerns indeed the discretionary review applicant not just happened to attend they visited the apartment building twice and the courtyard away was able to stand on its own as a source of light for purposes of comparison 3 hundred square feet is the size of the san francisco in your buildings the appellant has not raised issues of appeal she explored all those are the planning commission with the discretionary review hearing was held she participated in the
4:33 pm
planning process including the filing with the dr she presented to the planning commission i'm going to turn it over to robert evans and vivian lee. >> i'm vivian lee the project manager my husband and my sons have been living here with the intention of accommodating the need of our growing family we've been completely transparency regarding our plan and have worked closely with the neighbors during before and after 311 the appellant along with the landowner were unsuccessful in the permit eased since then the appellant has demand xhoigz on our part with the appeal we're
4:34 pm
confident our permit is of full compliance and they acted in giving us unanimous approval we're not trying to act in any way that's ingenious with us and my husband about continue the presentation. >> good evening robert the project manager or project sponsor we made a.m. an assessment to understand the particular issues we did conceive neighborhood outreach with the neighbors total of 8 times to understand their concerns and respond appropriatedly we've been religiously about the good morning, supervisors and working closely with the staff to come up with a sensitive design by volunteer good neighborhood
4:35 pm
gestures lower the neighborhood blow the height humility limit and provided generous side and rear set backs; right with regards to the appellants building we understand their concerns we understand that the how to address the shared light wells, however, if you compare the guidelines example with the actual condition the courtyard is had times larger than at that time example given in the r d g i'll repeat here light yard is 4 times larger than the guidelines if you look at the photos you'll see no property line windows and her windows get direct so we took her concerns seriously our engineer invited the site and it
4:36 pm
was reviewed by the residential design team in changes were necessary has partnerships we did a shadow sued only shadows in the rest of the year no impact whatsoever in summary the appellant were considered by ourself no design changes were needed or required no now information that and no procedural errors this is not a controversial projectile just the reverse 53 we have the support of our adjacent neighbors and the neighborhood and the support of the planning department and the residential design team and the inspections with the inspections praising our project so to conclude we feel we've done everything we
4:37 pm
can identified the issues and responded appropriately we don't believe there is a significant impact to the appellant thank you you. >> thank you. we hear from mr. t. >> good evening again commissioner president lazarus and commissioners corey t from the planning staff the permit at hand open the 27th street the permit was submitted no march 2013 it was reviewed by the residential design team with within the planning department to specifically to the residential guidelines in terms of the design it was found to be compliant with both the department heard the concerns
4:38 pm
the project was taken back to the design team at that review the issues it was a in debt review again found compliant with the residential guidelines and 311 notification was sent out in december of 2013 and ended in january of 2014 the project required a mandatory discretionary review because it was demolition of a dwelling unit and the construction of two replacement units it had to go before the planning commission it was before the planning commission of may of this year all the concerns that were raised for this appeal were raised for that discretionary review hearing the planning commission did unanimously approve the project with no conditions consistent with the guidelines to conclude the planning code and the design
4:39 pm
guidelines put an emphasis why here in the city and strive to strike 9 balance with the dense development that is existing and going to occur within the city with that in mind it was determined it was in compliant with the tools and documents to try to strike that balance and it was approved so considering no new information the department feels that permit was issued appropriately i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> all the objections were raised at this time. >> yes. and also i need to you notice the law firm i retained i can look at the briefs and make a fair judgment. >> mr. duffy so we'll take
4:40 pm
public comment any public comment on that item? everyone can please step forward it will help us move along feast stand on the one side of the room please whoever wants to speak first come forward. >> commissioner president lazarus. >> good evening thank you for taking the time to hear us i'm one of the owners on 27th street the reason i'm here to sport i o support my tenants that are greatly effected by the addition by the project on 27th street i was not present at the i believe that was a meet-and-greet meeting they had any sister showed up she was national aware it was 3 stories height so at the time i didn't know it was going to impact the
4:41 pm
direct sunlight in our property had i known i would have and the this sooner as well as notified the tenants of what would impact them by moving in or their existing living conditions i support any tenants they'll suffer most of the impact 95 percent the direct daylight effects the courtyards the east is the only heat year round and the permit holders current design 3 stories high which is at the edge of our mature property line the two units that will be compacted number of murdock's and which will top 95 percent of the sunshine and
4:42 pm
impact apartment number 3 below her our biggest concern is not been taken into account despite this is a negative impact on the current design and i ask you reconsider our appeal and take into account. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners my name is a daniel i'm joined by my wife brenda we live on 28 street in noah valley and i've known the folks we want to raise our families here over else last seven years because raising a family if san francisco means the support of friends that
4:43 pm
share your values robert and vivian we're happy to call our friends rob and vivian's children go to our schools and most importantly rob and vivian have cultivated friendship with their neighbors i live in only our only home and i believe rob and vivian want to build thaib their own family home from the beginning they've explained the vision on 26th street they want to create something special they've been concerned with the design of their homes we believe will be fantastic people are flip this home to try to make
4:44 pm
money simply don't know them they've not taken the time to see their commitment to the neighborhood as committed to their family we strongly support rob and vivian to build home. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm brenda wise man a neighbor of robbing and vivian i live on 27th street i'm here to read a letter to whom it may concern i have a letter we're the owners at 45027th street neighborhoods to rob and vivian our neighbors have been
4:45 pm
scared throughout the process to try to permit their home they instructed us about the plans once and draw it on paper left the door open to request moifgz we may have they've listened to the conversation prudent person to our question and other neighbors have done the same vivian and robert discussed their plans their architects and well-versed if a project as well as to do to maintain good neighborly conditions i'm understanding most neighbors are of support and if we can be of
4:46 pm
more sports lowest us know signed. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> oh, i didn't fill one out i'm jooent speaking no support of the project sponsor i live across the street from the proposed project i live on 27th street a long term resident and also in my house for 31 years vivian and rob have lived across the street and been impressed with they're new plans first, they meeting met with me and individuals they made modifications to the plan based on the concerns raised by the neighbors i was at the group meeting in their home and neighbors from east and west
4:47 pm
joining property were in attendance interest caesar chavez street and my neighbors 58 i can't think and rob reviewed the plans and made modifications to the plans i've talked to many of my neighbors and the people agreed this was a positive experience and vivian and rob were responsive i know how auditorium e awful the practices the process can be one developer was interested if building the biggest home and vivian and rob licenses to people and reached compromises i hope you support the plans thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> including but not
4:48 pm
limited to a wendy speak on a architect i live on that block and live in the neighborhood since 1975 i don't know the architect owner personally they've would down the hill i've not been involved in my of the meetings it is not a person war between neighbors like jan my neighbor before she sold them the house that's to the for i don't think this is an issue for lawyers and neighbors when light cross a property line we call it trespassing when daylight is not allowed to cross a property line it's called blocking an assess taking an existing continue on purpose when other solutions available we might even call it stealing
4:49 pm
night light trespassing can be changed we courage that however, a building wall 3 stories high a permanent good daylight is desirable the purpose planning and architecture it is so basically mentioned if the san francisco guidelines but they're an intent i'm going to speak to the i'd like to take this opportunity of daylight and what it means good guidelines of planning air and light and planning issues go beyond this project their basic and around the world the current permit did not meet the good guidelines i believe unnecessarily block units to the
4:50 pm
west this could have been corrected by the planning authority it wasn't it could have been cared considered and designed around but luckily a neighbor has brought to the attendance of the board of appeals to try to have access to daylight without results as an architect and resident of san francisco i must remind everyone here that planning and the planning and architecture community must do they're very best we count on you we count on our community architects are licensed to protect the safety and health and welfare of the public the general public and blocking existing light is not good for anyone we must do better and
4:51 pm
actually, the existing light well on 462 they call a light yard framing it in a special way could be a design asset for both properties the existing design is long and narrow and no light enters the existing permitted design a clever architect would use that light to bring a light well to start on the second floor level where the garage is allow a skylight to - >> your time is up. >> i'll say i hope that board this will set a horrible precedence because some neighbors like it and some don't it's your duty to respect the old and new tenants this design
4:52 pm
didn't respect the existing tenants. >> is there any additional public comment okay. seeing none we'll start our rebuttal ms. murdock first. >> thank you very much in rebuttal i'm saying that the planning commission and the project sponsors have said i've brought no new information, however, if the project sponsors had a licenses and given me an opportunity to meet with us individually like he did with all the other neighbors he would have seen we came up with modifications that are minor and additionally we gone ahead and did a daylight studies in our brief i brought full prints in case that helps i'm happy to
4:53 pm
submit those into evidence unlike their shadow studies we're losing light i don't believe the shadow studies are accurate, and, secondly i want to board to look at the buildings to the west when you look at that and actually, i have something to show open the projector when you look at yes those are their own designs as you can see their 3 story building height right here is turn around the back half the knowledge this is my apartment completely no exposure to the north and west and now to the east we're completely in a death like situation year around
4:54 pm
and additionally they discussed how they've made rare e.r. rear and front set back instead of make concessions they've not met with us like so many other neighbors that's all we're asking for additional time for us to be heard and one other important point i just moved back under new york last year i've been a long time resident of the napa valley and been there 16 years i also found any dream home when i moved into the building i basically have a place i want to live for decades but if it becomes a closet how will that be my dream home i ask for more time to meet with the
4:55 pm
neighbors on 4, 62. >> commissioners do you want the submittal or shall we ask them to take it back. >> you can take back our shadow study thank you. >> we'll hear rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you, commissioners very briefing i'll respond to this points raised first fairs by the building owner the point that direct sunlight will be interfered with direct sexually assaulted is not protected most people receive the addict sunlight the courtyard is appropriate for the sunlight in my project
4:56 pm
mr. wise man supported the project and ms. jensen supported the project and others we're happy the lady could appear sorry she didn't attend my of the many 8 meetings with the neighbors she had an opportunity to express her opportunity she didn't attend the c r hearing, in fact, that guess the first time we're heard from her we're 9 months down the road into the permit once again in her testimony ms. burr trained inter challenging ably used the word access to light is indirect light direct sunlight is what
4:57 pm
you get when our window faces the sun not many people have that benefit so in conclusion, this project does provide adequate access to light in the light court. >> determined by the planning staff and affirmed by the planning commission. >> i have a question. >> question yes. >> has b there been conversation with ms. murdock. >> she was herald acquit extensively. >> i think she referenced the other neighbors i'm trying to figure out. >> well, there was meeting held open for everyone i don't think she attended them. >> i first met the appellant
4:58 pm
prior to the 311 we met on a preapplication meeting she knew ever our project we challenged conversations we said you'll be receiving a 311 notice i gave her my card didn't hear anything the 311 notice went out she sent an e-mail we agreed to work with staff to investigate her concerns we do and planning staff invited the site in person her concerns were addressed her concerns were heard at the planning commission commissioner moore and commissioner fung praised our project. >> many wilson's question if
4:59 pm
you had direct e-mail corresponds. >> yes. >> any thing mr. t. >> good evening commissioners corey t planning staff i want to touch on a point i think that the permit holders representative mentioned which is the residence guidelines says there is an existing light well, if you butt up against it match that but for larger light wells it is a 6 by 9 light well even though not matched one hundred percentage but matched 3 by 6 a typical light well, that's the situation we see most often in those situations they railway is the case that light well will preserve all of the sunlight to
5:00 pm
the neighboring building but preserve some of the light it is indirect not the intent to have the balance when considering just the different aspects the way that properties face and the street runs in this situation the light well, was not considered a light well more of a light court more than three or four times larger than the light well and the main obstacle to area the 3 story portion at the front of the lot due south and how much light regardless the neighboring properties i want to talk about that we do p have guidelines for smaller light

20 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on