Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 14, 2015 4:30am-5:01am PST

4:30 am
the seat belts are quite large between hours we've made them larger from 139 it 182 the set back on the the fourth level and inches on the east side of the building those are sixth set backs and pretty big changes and the unit size have been reduced counsel to one barely over 22 hundred square feet and 21 hundred square feet i had we had a discussion earlier during my remarks a lot of times when our talking about square footage there's a lot of things that don't get counts as square footage and some that do you know, i think the project sponsor has brought up a point that 8 units in the area over 23 hundred square footage i believe that's what you said if i'm not mistaken over 2 thousand f this
4:31 am
is not that unusually large not a problems are larger homes today families do oftentimes need for space because they have home offices a lot of people work from home and multi generational situation we're looking at looking at what's the impact on the neighbors and neighborhood this is well scaled down woodsideing i will ask you continue to work with the staff to make the facade as conceptual as potential i've been down state street and different architecture and it's a wonderful opportunity for in file housing we need 90 in san francisco we're not building
4:32 am
single-family homes we need the in fill housing this is a place to do it in a taste full manner consistent with the rest of the neighborhood as far as issues of privacy i think there are you're in an urban environment people can looking at look out of a window into another window shades work well and also bridge to bridge one really in $550,000 which compared to some places is less expensive but close to our affordability limit is i'm not sure what the actual number is today, i that it's a percentage of the single-family homes mr. washington do you know >> chief administrative officer vin washington planning staff i don't have the exact figure.
4:33 am
>> 4.506. >> thank you. >> this would make it above if this is acceptable above the level where we have to have a mandatory discretionary review for the demolition so you know realistically of this place were to be preserved which i think is not a good idea you'll gain two units anyone that will buy this will build it and it will be a lot important expensive than now people will make improvements and make it a larger unit i think they've done almost everything we've asked you don't say i don't see anything else from the developers. >> commissioner richards. >> i have a question for project sponsor during the last
4:34 am
hearing in november the former person that rented it said that there's he used to have to run outside the building to get to a unit was there one there. >> you don't know i don't know the situation the owner they were in a con continuous extension situation they built it illegal and legalized it before the sale and with respect disconnected areas. >> so it was considered another unit or - >> no nov on it when i looked at the property when my clients bulth it there was no kitchen down there. >> staff have information and it was owned by the former owner for 10 years i understand.
4:35 am
>> it's interesting here we have a building you experiences my frustration how we make discussions what takes priority worker housing or more housing this remind me of the 26 and clemente i come back to we voted to demolish two units small units rent control units this wouldn't be under rent control it's exempt but nonetheless it recess that's before i think you know another case we had where we went ahead and said it was okay. on brookd street the units were $1.6 million and created a $4.2 million house i'm scratching my head i felt like when i walk down the street there's anger and the word i
4:36 am
concurred this word we're providing an economic cleansing of the city i see we're going to have two new unit authenticity an appropriate use of the land but one thousand $12,000 square feet you're looking at $2 million in condo we're trying to balance it both ways this is the presumption. if i feel i feel some of the frustration the gentleman had as well i don't know what to do to balance those priorities commissioner moore. >> in a pickle we are, however our task is to look at code compliant projects we can't on our own change the basic thrust of green why this small home currently on the property is being appraised at the cost by
4:37 am
which it is being appraised and who sets the delta of why all of a sudden like a couple thoutsz thousand dollars in in between it's unaffordable we're torn in 5 directions i'm trying to do everything to vote against it if it was a slithering different situation where someone agree galtd two lots two different sides of the street and started to tear down the unit to maximize the lots that's a no no, however, the affordability of the units was not challenged we don't have this situation we're looking at an application for a code compliant project
4:38 am
except for things in the residential guidelines we could approve like the previous project i did not understand about the cross section when we met commissioner richards and myself met with planning staff mr. washington and mr. smith to discuss the design and modifications of the design the only tool we/was not to argue about an acknowledging we don't have this power we can resist the construction but in this 0 particular case no power we can't dictate this is a little bit two big but we have to
4:39 am
approve buildings are two big like how do we define offer size with the patterns of smaller buildings i can't argue that i can only identify the problems where someone has exemptions that don't makes sense nobody knows of light wells and the shooting behind the footprints of privacy and the adjacent properties and so on this is the correct modification and i can't create the affordable units and not make it smaller either so that's the pickle. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he see we have other
4:40 am
commissioners, i do have a question do we have to take dr and approve the moifltd project, sir. >> well the demolition right. >> sorry you have to take the dr to allow for the demolition that's what it is to do the demolition. >> it would be our approval for the modified project which i guess is now before us. >> so that would be my motion. >> commissioner antonini let's verify. >> maybe i misspoke i thought it was called out of the mandatory discretionary review. >> my understanding is the it is a mandatory discretionary review hearing but the commission can decide not to take dr and approve it. >> with the demo we do not take the dr we don't take the dr and
4:41 am
approve the project. >> as no veto the project precedes as proposed. >> well, it is proposed the last proposed - you could take dr and condition further the project or not take dr and approve as proposed. >> i guess my motion then to take dr for the purpose of approving the modified project but not taking dr to disparagraph the demolition i mean the demolition - so that would be my motion to take dr to approve the modified project as presented today. >> can i get clarification. >> i think we can clarify that
4:42 am
this modified revised plan has been formerly presented to the planning commission therefore you don't need to take discretionary review you have no intentions on the plan the original plan that was seen by the commission in november if you wish to go to this plan you'll have to have taken dr on that presentation but since there is formally presented there's no need to take discretionary review. >> i'll restate my motion do not take dr and approve the project. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you okay. so i do think that the project was responsive to many of the comments that the commission made i appreciate commissioner moore and commissioner richards taking the
4:43 am
time to meet with the project sponsor i'll say one thing about the affordability i was challenged personally the way i approach those projects just like this building this hopefully, the building we're allowing to go forward we're all dust and we talk about affordability but san francisco is seems like a robust town and what's market rate today is outrage but not that way in a decade the market rate changes i think everyone thinks the market rate is high i think we're in doing a benefit actually to that street by having two actual unit not just a smaller unit and basement we're not determined whether or not it is not a unit investigating two versus one in that area and we can't condition
4:44 am
the affordability of units not like the demolition of rent control units they can sell it to whoever they want it people will evaluate it; however they want for those reasons i definitely yes, ma'am emphasis with commissioner moore and commissioner richards what they've stated that's my reason for supporting the moifltd version in a way we can talk about it and are you seconding that. >> commissioner richards. >> one thing to the community if you read the articles that was in the christen on the first page two days ago supervisor wiener is on to making changes to how developments done in corona heights i hope you'll
4:45 am
channel your passion to sit down with him and get a working group going because this sort of legislation there's not a lot we can do i personally dislike all my decision but quote/unquote the tenants that left the building left a lot ofly i said this is a lawful project. >> commissioner moore. >> this commission has talked with the department for a number of years i've led the discussion we look at the identification across the city in is an equitable way when those large hours they're the changing the neighborhood i'm not pointing out towards this project exactly what i'm saying i like to look
4:46 am
ahead despite the need for identification some were guided by symwhat this department does that's a big challenge the department needs grants to do that it needs to be done in different neighborhoods differently from typography to smaller streets to different housing types it needs to be done in order for us to look at the future and have something which is not detrimental to what we're trying to do that. >> commissioner richards. >> can we put that on the action item list please we'll talk about that how we will handle that it is accompany two or three times and including looking at the responsibility at large of the city. >> we'll rephrase that.
4:47 am
>> (laughter). >> to look at residential guidelines which look at the dense indication of the city neighborhood by neighborhood establishing future dpvlz of what is acceptable. >> if i may i think we should discuss that but i'm sure you're aware of we look at those projects address by address who is on the hill and it's hardly what we tried to talk about this afternoon those blanket statements are good but in my time here seeing those projects on the west side e.r. north side makes a big difference i want to talk about that but part of the
4:48 am
conversation to leave freedom and responsibility for san francisco to shape itself because of the different projects they're all different we get into a difficult situation at the end of the day about the defense lawyers we get folks talking about the multi million dollars projects that have significant impacts to the city this is a million dollars or $2 million project not gigantic we make huge movement and in my opinion those are the ones we should spend the time to increase the affordability of the middle-income hours stratosphere i got off the subject but commissioner moore i believe that we should give the caveat putting blanket
4:49 am
statements could handcuff us more and we need to look at other example to better explain this. >> yes. yes. yes. >> commissioner antonini and yeah. he appreciate comments from members of the public and i know this project is you know drawn a lot of attention but there are projects that go forth without approval the practicing those their code compliant and nobody challenges them on a dr there was an article in the chronicle one house i mentioned this earlier the remarks were 4 straight homes and it never came before the planning commission nobody bothered to file a dr so it was approved administratively a whether or not they're good or bad projects like on museum
4:50 am
their quite a bit larger and, in fact in terms of square footage and the number of floors and those sorts of things. >> commissioner richards and just one other point we were dealing with a different situation only 27th and clemente the board of supervisors came back and said we need to draw the line i understand what our saying the impact on the larger affordable units but i don't know how many prongs coming before the depended thousands of permits i don't know how many result in the loss of affordable but the board of supervisors set an example is this a workers house by you know. >> i understand. >> commissioners and we have a motion and a second to not take dr and approve as modified commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson
4:51 am
commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on general public comment sir, you are. >> you've been incredibly patient. >> you believe me i'm not a patient person but what i have to say it incredibly important this is not about the candle stick project i agree with the community it shouldn't be blown-up mr. washington i think you like to hear that this is about my article again, i own digital television i started off as a child actor in san francisco basically, the history of the stadium in san francisco the polio fields was built at the turn the century not this
4:52 am
stint but last vicinity century biking was the number one sport and the polio fields was the 99 venue for thirty years up to the 50s and have key discharge before they moved to candle stick you go on and have steel stadium that's the first stadium for the giant before candle stick was built i could go on stadium with going to get build and torn down right now the warriors building their stadium this brings me to him or her well, let me say this ♪ article i have statements from mr. jordan's the head of the african-american chamber of
4:53 am
commerce and amos brown the head of the naacp and both of them pointed out in separate intrufz interviews how gooel and feedback and twitter come here and get all those deals and money, etc., etc. and they're getting tax incentives me as an owner i don't appreciate that to grow to the that have the of a twitter a google or facebook, etc., etc. none of the companies what they're doing a think outside the box or expressive to us and saw that at moscone years ago when i was at moscone the head of real out of seattle they're a company in the for ray
4:54 am
of all the broadband of technology before everybody knew the word broadband as we go on and the warriors stadium is about to be built i had a conversation guess what, a gentleman that worked for city hall and now with the warriors he told me to my face i'm going to stop our company and other black owned companies if doing business with the warriors yes this is an article and going to follow up i'd like to get your cards to get a meeting so when you talk about inclusion it should be from the top reverend brown said we're not at the table at the beginning of those conversations which puts austin us at a gift and to be
4:55 am
economic inclusion our companies have to be at a level where we can actually hire people in san francisco across the board i've been talking about the christen and other media for the biggest in the world most of their >> sir unfortunately, your time - >> if you don't have a lot of money in the big media you don't get our slant in there i think you know what i'm talking about this was quite something. >> thank you dr. tompkins your afforded time on the first round this portion of public comment is intended for those who are not able to speak during that time. >> thank you for your courtesy
4:56 am
and respect for any colleagues we had commissioner richards you spoke about in terms of the cooperation of city ordinances we have a some reason meeting my other colleagues had to attend on the shipyard with the mayors citizens advisory committee commission talking about the same issue that's why i stated to represent their opinion i'll start with that that immediately their concern of how thing were handed in this matter is a bait and swach when the eir was presented to the commission and the public in general we participated in about a mechanic don't guess and that as some of our staff members presented to you as i talked about also in my earlier presentation an addendum is handled out as to it is a
4:57 am
missing table in this case i'm asking the commissions as you go through our recognition you clearly define what is an addendum and what is not this case for candle stick was a game changing methodology this was imposed and slide in my opinion and the communities opinion as a misrepresentation it avoided the krblg last year process and we were left out of if i believe in the participatory democracy we asked for a inclusionary please review your laws, and, secondly, in the experience we tried to present to your department and staff there is a disconnect between
4:58 am
the - i spoke to the commissioners getting to know i as human beings. >> what the public is preserved you as and how we were treated by the staff when we or went there a total disrespect the developers are on one plateau and the citizens pushed to the side we asked for concrete questions can i please get some help on the projector i don't think i broke it thank you i killed it on that - on this sheet the questions we asked for example i wanted to sit down
4:59 am
with larry nefarious focuses and engineers on the outer line the. >> sir unfortunately, our 3 minutes is up. >> finish our thought and leave our material with us. >> i appreciate it one it is impossible and given the good grateful there's a hill behind it no way an explosion or implosion can took place that can't happen all i'm asking is good science be utilized in this it was shameful if this was submitted to the commission. >> thank you very much you can leave it with us if you were at
5:00 am
my class at uc berkley i'll flung you for putting a paper in like this thank you for indulging us. >> >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners this is actually, the item i came to speak only candle stick i'm prefer by sacrificing tech this might be under ocii but your staff works for you for you and they're under our direction so you can have an impact on this hopefully, you got my e-mail that i sent on the 18th that lays anti reasons this is demolition should not be an implosion demolition and if you didn't get that wave our hand i'm making sure you get it but i think you've


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on