Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  August 30, 2019 11:00pm-12:01am PDT

11:00 pm
unless you get enough information on the transit. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here because we are located right next door and we are the only building that is directly attached to the project. so we had some concerns coming in and signing a lease what the construction process was going to be. we feel we're in a good position with the e.i.r. and the land lease developer, that they're paying attention and they're going to pay attention to what happens through the construction process and look at things that our business is not disrupted. we're also in active conversation about ongoing cultural program in the public spaces that would be ongoing
11:01 pm
rather than a static sculpture and do some vital programming for the programs and families that are going to be moving into the area. we support this project and the market octavia amendment. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am a hays valley resident and a long-term supporter of market and octavia. when this was coming up and talking about 400-foot towers, they would say you support this? yes, i do. this is the transit hub. so to much criticism from some people, i was an aggressive supporter of all of this. i think some of what concerns me
11:02 pm
about this in addition to some technical points and the points raised by the other speakers about the adequacy of muni and other things like that for services, when the proposal to raise some of the 400-foot towers was first voiced, it was look at the esthetic of this tower with 400-foot towers. we can do thinner, elegant, beautiful, very tight and it's going to really look gorgeous. we'll get some extra housing out of it. isn't that good? yeah, that sounds good. however, as it's developing now, we have a very different profile. the only approved project at 400 feet, 1 oak, is looking to go up to 600 feet. 30 vanes is 400 feet.
11:03 pm
we see how big that really is. 600 feet is 50% higher than that. it looks like all four corners are going to be 600-foot towers. that's mammoth. that's also back to one big blob of everything the same height. so that's something that really concerns me a great deal. in terms of the adequacy of the report, just a couple of examples. on page 84 where they're talking about commercial and passage or loading, the conclusion is there is no feasible way to reduce this impact. we know the t.a.c.s weren't adequately taken into account on that and they've grown and mushroomed since then. this doesn't even begin to take into account the food delivery services. i've had conversations with some of the sponsors and they've
11:04 pm
talked about where u.p.s. and fedex can go in and they think they've solved the problem, but this is not something on their radar. that is a huge concern. we're not playing catchup. we are more reactive. when you look at 98 franklin, they're using a 38% dropoff rate. if anyone sees french american student base and they think the same 30% applies to all school applies to french american, you have another thing coming. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jason henderson. i've been involved with this plan for over a decade. i was involved with the formation of the plan. so this is an excellent location for housing. however, i want to talk about the adequacy of this document. i'm going to go by the page numbers to help you find what i'm talking about.
11:05 pm
so, first of all, 3 b-8 this is all from the transportation section. the volumes are excruciatingly detailed. there is a peak all day on all the streets in the plan area and outside the plan area. you miss a lot of nuance when you don't look at the volumes. the bike traffic is coming from another direction. there's a lot of traffic heading to the boulevard that is coming from this area, westbound, that's not even in here. your technical documents say you can look at different peaks, so you should be including that. the v.m.t. threshold, you guys adopted this a few years ago. you're allowing suburban mentality. ask yourself how far you drive or take an uber every day.
11:06 pm
your threshold should be 1 mile. this area is between 1 mile and 3 miles per capita per day. that's fair. not santa clara threshold. so that's 3b-10. the loading, the statement made about the mitigation of the loading is there is no feasible mitigation. there is very little analysis of loading when you study it. it's very old school like a u.p.s. delivery coming at 4:00 in the afternoon. we know that there's all kinds of apps and services. and passenger and commercial loading is a huge -- it's going to swarm this area. and the document says there is no feasible mitigation. that's at 3 b-46.
11:07 pm
travel demand. the travel to the south is underestimated. the document says that it's going to be about 3%. that's crazy. i don't know where that comes from, but it underplays the commuting patterns. i suggest a few mitigations that could be put into this document. metering. the gold standard of transit does metering all around the city to control the flow of traffic. the load lg can be dealt with by having a break point outside of the area, empty out the vans, put it on electric cargo bikes. you can keep this area from being overwhelmed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i think as i just went over i
11:08 pm
do think -- i want to reiterate, we don't think this is a time to be upzoning here and we would like to see this project held until the city has an equitable policy in place that say what are the guidelines here, particularly in light of the fact here we are not able to do meaningful value recapture. if that's true, i think we would hold instead of transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth off the top without getting anything back for our services and infrastructure, et cetera. i think to look at a few of the particulars here, i wanted to point out that i do have some concerns again. i see, for example, in the jobs numbers things like 30 vannes we have here 230 square feet resulting in 1,460 employees, 240 square feet for employee. as we presented before, i'm not
11:09 pm
sure how we are stuck on these high, high numbers. pretty standard number is about 60% of that or about 151 square foot per employee. that's pretty easily findable on the web. you can google it right now. we take that as a very reasonable average, especially in san francisco where we know it's not uncommon to walk in and see people sitting at picnic tables and the numbers are much, much denser. we do think jobs are a significant part of this. we have in the evaluation also that it says it will not displace any existing residents, but we do think that the creation of these housing studies are starting to show like the minneapolis study. it shows that we should expect a
11:10 pm
2 to 17% increase of the low-cost rental using surrounding these housing units. based on our own evaluation there is a sidesable amount of very low income population, along with of course a fairly sizeable homeless population in this area. i was not able to find anything on impacts to potentially any of the existing homeless population which is living in some of those areas that are set to be redesigned. so i want to go with one more. i have a state density bonus is only allotted for 15% increase, but i would like to see the data from the planning department integrated. we can effect a much higher number to be reflected in the
11:11 pm
report. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> this is probably all 50 comments. this area really struck me like it's gobbling up the city. this is tech industry right here. there's a lot of projects on this map that have been approved that have not been built. 1 oak right here. 1370 mission right there. across the street from the planning department right here. so -- and those projects account for 800 units of housing that have already been approved but
11:12 pm
not built. one of the fantasies we engage in is approving projects built in. that's not really the case. i have a couple of comments on this. based on the academy of art is coming to you in a couple of weeks. there are nine projects that are in the van ness quarter which are major -- i will put this map just because it's helpful to see what area is being commented on. van ness avenue should not have any private buses approved by the planning commission. one of them is coming to you for approval in a couple months, academy of art. the planning department has a lot of work to do to fight back and the c.i.r. is part of the fighting back. we don't really have a handle on
11:13 pm
the private buses, the google buses, that come right by the planning department and through this area and interfere with traffic. we are spending billions of dollars to reconstruct transit on van ness avenue. if we make the transit situation worse by not dealing with uber and lyft and everyone who does dropoffs like private buses and don't go to the state as a city to say we need some relief and policy to be approved, this is a mitigation measure. one of the major mitigation measures is city getting a handle on controlling t.m.c.s, uber and lyft. second very specific one, i don't understand what ty the analysis of transit doesn't blue
11:14 pm
the buses. anyone who's a realist knows that they are a major vehicle distribution point in this city. the market plan was done in 2008. the eastern neighborhood plan was done in 2008. the downtown plan was done in 1985. i will have a lot of written comments. one thing you might consider is extending the comment period a couple of days. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. any comments from our fellow commissioners? okay. i will say -- i do have
11:15 pm
comments. i think that several of the speakers said things that i agree with as to the adequacy of our e.i.r. this is not enough for me not to move forward with it. but to have our analysis and review keep up with the reality of the world that we live in where there are deliveries in uber and also the reality of our disinvestment in public transportation. i do take seriously and i would like to have an analysis that is supportable. based on the public's reality of getting around the city. so that does speak to me. while i also empathize with wanting to have an equitable
11:16 pm
value recapture of zoning, i'm not sure that not moving forward with the c.i.r. is the proper strategy for that, although it would be nice if we had that kind of power but we don't. but i hear you. so thank you. >> if there's no further comment, commissioners, we can move on to the next item, 12, for case 2019-000268cua at gates street, the conditional use authorization.
11:17 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. you have before you request for conditional use authorization to legalization an unauthorized demolition of a 1,337 gross square feet. please note, there's been a revised floor area calculation from 1,432 and allow the reconstruction of a 1,370 square foot residential building with bicycle automobile and no automobile parking within the district. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317. the project is exempt from the
11:18 pm
california environmental quality act as a class 1 and 3 catego c categorical exemption. public comment, the department received one public comment on the project from a neighbor who is asking the project sponsor to install a trench system for hydrological drainage on the system. although this is not an item under planning department purview, the planning structure submitted a structural drawing to show a type of drainage system. the project site no longer possesses an existing structure. the property owner who purchased the property with a fire-damaged building attempted to repair the previously existing structure and, unfortunately, the contractor demolished the structure. the basis for the recommendation to approve is the department finds that the project on balance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. and although the property owner is responsible for the unauthorized demolition, the
11:19 pm
previously existing structure was severely damaged by fire. there is no longer a structure on the site and to deny the new construction of a replacement residential building would not be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> we will hear from the project sponsor. >> hi. my wife and i are the owners of the property with our son. we purchased this property on december 2017. it was severely fire damaged. at the time we had even to sign a waiver to let us go and take a look at the property. later we decided just to remodel the house and repair the
11:20 pm
existing house, but unfortunately because of the severe damage, when they were starting to demo the house and shoring, whatever, the house collapsed. it was about a year ago. right now the project has been stopped for more than a year. you know, even at that time and also at this time we just want to put whatever used to be there and just that's our request. and about the the contractor, we had to fire this guy. he was -- he mentioned that he's bankrupt. we paid him more than $100,000, which is gone, and he's another loss over there. so this is the history of the property. so more -- yeah, thank you.
11:21 pm
>> this is the architect. do you want to say something? >> hi, we are the architect for the project. it's the homeowners mentioned when they first purchased the property, we investigated what was possible. we had a meeting with planning staff to review what options were available for them. having discussed that and weighed their options their decision was to repair the building, do an interior remodel, and get into the property. the initial application which led to the cuckets project was an interior remodel. since the project collapsed and the site was cleared, we've been working closely with the owners and d.b.i. we've had a hearing with the director and we've essentially been following everyone's advice. the new application was to restore the building to its original square footage which is
11:22 pm
1,337 square feet. there have been some minor changes to the building. we've reduced the back wall a little bit and provided some space for off-street bike parking which wasn't available on the street. we're available for questions. >> i was asked to help on this. i don't like doing these cases, but i think this is an example of the other extreme of the demolition process. i've been in front of this commission on this case because i think there should be triage on different levels. this project was a severely damaged fire damaged building. the seller didn't mention to the buyers that the building department recommend that it be torn down. they bought it and their conversations with planning were the options without the knowledge it should have been torn down. planning made some recommendations. they submitted a set of drawings, basically fixing the same building. the contractor shows up the very
11:23 pm
first day he showed up, they shore it up so they can do the soft demo, it collapses. it wasn't over three months or two months, it collapses during the shoring. they have taken those original remodelled plans, changed a few things. it's the same drawings that are in front of you. a very modest 1200 or 1300 square foot house they'd like to rebuild. they've made some changes to address the rear yard setback. if they'd known they could have torn it down. they probably would have considered something else, but they viewed this as a remodel. and during the first day of construction when the building collapsed, that is under the planning code a demolition because their permit was for remodel, not demolition. but because of the collapsing on the first day i feel comfortable
11:24 pm
in saying there was no malicious activity. there wasn't something they were trying to gain to go from 1300 square feet to 4,000. they probably couldn't even afford 4,000. this was a fixer-upper house. we're trying to be able to get these people back in the house and let them fix it up. so we hope the commission could grant them c.u. and allow them to build and move back into their house. i truly believe this is not a spec, this is their home and this is what it has always been. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. we will now take public comment on this item. is there any public comment? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i have to believe that this is a true story, given that the rebuild is exactly what was there. the only question, it's my own curiosity. what did the contractor do for
11:25 pm
that thing to collapse? would it have collapsed anyway? >> i wasn't there. they paid him $120,000 to start. i believe he was attempting to shore the building up when it collapsed. no one died. no one got hurt. i don't know, why the grace of god why no one did, but that's what they were doing the first day is attempting to shore for the fire damage. during the hearings with the building department for the demo because that was the first step, the building department was surprised we didn't turn it down. and it turns out the previous owner was advised to tear it down. i think it was a tear-down that they bought as a remodel. >> thank you. >> i was going to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion
11:26 pm
that has been seconded to approve this with conditions. [vot [vote]. >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 13 for case number 2008.0023cua. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, planning commission. chris towns with planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for the proposed demolition of an existing single-family dwelling and the construction of a new four-storey approximately 6400 square foot two-unit dwelling building with two class 1 bicycle spaces and parking
11:27 pm
spaces. pursuant to planning code 317 c an application for a permit of the loss of one or more residential units is required to obtain a c.u. authorization. and the application for the replacement building shall also be subject to the c. requirements. the site is located on the south side of 9th street. lot 033. it is a typical rectangular-shaped lot. it has an area of approximately 2,850 square feet. the lot is slightly down sloping and contains a two-storey 750 square foot home with a one-car garage. it is located in the noi neighborhood. this includes a five-storey
11:28 pm
building. the property is n r in one block of the recreational center and within two blocks of billy goat hill. with regard to the replacement structure, the proposed 40-foot tall building will provide two dwelling units with two parking spaces and bicycle places. the units themselves included 2,988 square foot lower unit and a similar upper unit. usable evidence is provided in the form of the rear yard for the lower unit and for private decks for the upper unit. archite architecturally it is designed and will align with the adjacent buildings and the fourth floor that is recessed from the front facade. at the time of the packet mailing there were eight letters of opposition and no letters of
11:29 pm
support. they are consistent in expressing concerns about the height, mass, and scale and general facade being inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern and character. subsequent to the packet mailing, the department received seven letters of opposition that includes a neighborhood petition. the sponsor compiled a supplemental exhibit which was previously e-mailed to the commission that includes facade material detail, renderings and color photos and renderings by the same architect to provide a detail. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the residence guidelines, the planning code pursuant to 317 as well as the objectives and policies of the general plan as follows. the project is located in the rh-2 zoning district. the rh-2 district is intended to
11:30 pm
accommodate greater density than what exists on site. it will result in a net gain of one unit. thereby, it will maximize the permitted density. the project will promote the establishment of family housing in proximity to mass paratransit by creating two family-sized dwelling units upon a lot within approximately a mile of two separate bart stations. the project will increase the number of bedrooms on site from three to eight total. it will not displace any existing tenants. i can hand out the sponsor exhibit as well as the letters. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the
11:31 pm
project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is earl weiss. i am the architect. although this is a c.u. and we're looking at whether it's appropriate to take out this small building, we also know that there is a lot of people here and unfortunately there seems to be a lot of confusion and a lot of panic in the neighborhood. so i would like to take part of my five minutes. go into a little more detail than i normally would on how we're approaching the massing, the finishes, and try to address their concerns. so let's start with the building itself. this is the building itself right here. i think it's been abandoned for
11:32 pm
many years. it's basically falling apart. the street facade is a bit challenged. we have this '70s thing over here and then we have something more traditional on one side. so we wanted to approach this as blending the facade, but before we even talk about the facade it's really important to talk about the massing. so when we look at the google earth image right here, one of the first things we look at is obviously rear yard and white walls. you can see here right here how the building intrudes in the light well. we are going to correct that with the new building. the adjacent building also has a big light well, but it's mainly soaked up in fire escapes. however, there are some small windows in there so we did match that. it's also important to know with these light wells that they
11:33 pm
don't extend down to the ground floor. they do on the smaller building over here, but there's no windows in there. so although planning doesn't require that we match a light wall all the way to grade, had there been some windows, we would have looked at that. let's look at massing here. the first place to start is a boundary survey. we go on the survey to locate the size, dimension, depth of any sort of site features adjacent. as you can see, the building to this side is quite deep. now, this is important, something that came up -- >> excuse me. we cannot well see. could you push it up because we only see a third of what you're talking about. thank you so much. >> there you go. sorry. i'm trying to do two things at
11:34 pm
once. one of the things that came up about site survey and the google maps is they have a little deck here. so we wanted to make sure -- this is a giant blank wall on this side. so it was appropriate to locate the mass of the new building towards the bigger building, snug up to the big wall and stay away from that side as much as possible. now, another really important thing -- so let's take a look at the site plan and how we approach that. there we go. unfortunately, we have not heard to date directly from the residents or the owners of
11:35 pm
either neighboring building because we'd really like to. if there is a window that needs to be protected, if there's something that we can wiggle around a little bit, we're really open to that, but you've got to contact us. so we did use the residential guidelines in terms of matching light walls. important with manufacturing as well is people don't like to see a vertical wall, particularly on the street. so we stepped -- not only do we step back in the back. we stepped the fourth floor back in the front and back. and another smaller, but important, thing for me is because this building is traditional, we also did a voluntary setback to try to match the corner of the building up. now because people are sensitive with the front setbacks, normally it's -- in the rh-2
11:36 pm
it's a 10-foot setback. we did a planning asked us to do a solid parapet wall to black -- >> i'm going to give you one more minute. >> thank you. so massing, that's what we're looking at because it's a slope street, you'll see lots of it from the down hill and from the back hill, but the back face is consistent. materials, samples, to do something this was a good example of a really ugly building, traditional building. we tried to do something soft to blend in. the important thing with these materials is they get better as you get closer. this is a limestone base with a smooth -- that's it. anyway. we were trying to do the best we
11:37 pm
could, detail on the granite, another sample of how we like to detail the entry. sor sorry. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. thank you very much. >> i'm sure you will. thank you. >> we will now take public comment on this item. i have quaef speaker cards. if you could line up on the left side of the room. william short, andy wallace, cybil myer, mariann royal. i'll call off some more. come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is william schwartz and i own the building just adjacent to this project. it's just the one slightly up the hill.
11:38 pm
my complaint about this project is it's out of proportion to this street. it is a solid block of a building. it removes a 750 square foot house, replaces it with something over 6,000 square feet. it's a huge, huge building. so what does that convert to? it converts to two units that are each 3,000-plus square feet. if we wanted to talk about getting density on this street, maybe we would make four or five units in that 6,000 square feet. so they're creating two $1 million properties. so every square foot that they can pack into that property is a lot of money to be made. so it's all about the profit. very little consideration to the proportionality to the street.
11:39 pm
we've heard this all day today i kind of think. i mean, there was another project that was asked to take the fourth floor out and i would feel that this property deserves the same treatment. the fourth floor bringing this thing to 40 feet is an unnecessary extra level. that's 10 feet that should be taken off or at least make the height of this property the same as the height to the left and the right of it, the adjacent property. so it doesn't have to stick up that extra 10 feet or so. so i think this property is excessive in terms of the amount of square feet and the -- what else did i want to say. that's basically it. the same arguments apply earlier today, 49 hopkins, eliminate the
11:40 pm
fourth floor and that would make this thing reasonable. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissions. i am emmy calma and i live a few doors down. i am a long-time resident and have owned my home since 1966. in regards to 461 as a neighbor i'm concerned with the facade. once again, as with the current condition of 438 and 440, the neighbors are being presented with a very cheap-looking, bland box style. i feel there is good modern and bad, and this is bad. the flat front, large windows, and shoddy materials are non-descript and adds nothing to
11:41 pm
the character of the neighborhood. number two, in regards to the height, it would be better without the fourth story as a proposed building height impacts the adjoining neighbors ventilation. the ground floor and the basement at the rear should be utilized for extra space. in closing, i would like to see revisions on this property, especially since it sat empty for years. we want a building that reinforces the character and scale of our existing neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is kevin wallace. i live around the corner. all i have to say is it's just too bilge. it is really massive. bigger than the ones across the street that are possibly too big. i think taken off the fourth floor and the fifth floor which
11:42 pm
is a roof deck would help a lot. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wallace. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is cybil myer. i'm opposing the proposed plans for a four-storey house to be built. this house has been abandoned for a long time, years. we live a few doors down. we didn't see any communication or plans from the architect or the developer as we have for other projects in the neighborhood. there is no precedent set for a four-storey two-unit building on this street. we prefer not to have a repeat of the huge single home, number 440, that was built above the allowed height limit even with repeated requests to the building department to not allow this to happen. in fairness to those who have lived there for 25 years and more we would have appreciated
11:43 pm
any correspondence. other residences have been renovated or rebuilt with more notice than we've received for this project. please take into account this is a single-home neighborhood which attracted us to the area. it doesn't seem right that a developer comes into the neighborhood and without hardly any notice determines the plan a four-storey house. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ken shirts. i live at 436 ceasar. i've lived here for ten years and i think we've all seen these big projects come in that do not the respect the design and character of the neighborhood, have an adverse effect on neighbors. i think this is one such project. the four-level project is not consistent with this neighborhood, these two- to three-level-storey houses. it will clearly have an adverse
11:44 pm
impact on surrounding properties and create a bad precedent for this block. that said, this design is also excessive. over 6,000 square feet. these units are unaffordable in design. if these were scaled down and more modestly designed in accordance with the neighborhood, they would be more affordable. i ask that you redesign this project. >> i am mariann rural. i live a few doors down from this proposed new building. we have owned that house for almost 30 years. it's 11 or 1200 square feet. the thought of something six or seven times bigger than our beautiful victorian small home in that neighborhood across the street -- we get to look at two monstrosities that were approved
11:45 pm
across the street from us. i would love for you to drive down our street and look at those houses. we ask that you at the very least take away that fourth storey. i love the idea of it becomes more than two units especially with parking because that street is terrible for parking. we're in the doughnut hole, but we would appreciate your attention to this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i live at 469-29 street, which is the more traditional building that is next door to the proposed unit. i am opposed to at least the fourth storey being put on this unit, mainly because as you can see the existing unit -- it would be taller than the building that is across their lot from our current building.
11:46 pm
this is my lower neighbor's deck. the new building proposed would completely block any access to their windows they have here. i'm also opposed to the design of the building. i find that the facade is unfortunately not in congruence with the rest of the grain of the neighborhood, as was mentioned here before. there are two buildings that have previously been modified that are far too tall and out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. there is actually the other buildings being renovated that are able to be made into multiple unit houses. they can adhere more to the character of the neighborhood. frankly, while changing n.s.f. is inevitable, i feel this neighborhood and all the neighborhoods have their distinct character and this particular design appearing more like a store front than a
11:47 pm
residential area takes away from the uniqueness of this area. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm an architect. and i live at 451-29 street, which is two doors down the hill from the proposed project. i want to thank the committee for permitting us to discuss the proposed project. our concern is regarding the specific design of the proposed building. my statement reviews the proposed bay windows, proportions, and window size and features, concerns that are part of the residential guidelines. there are 42 properties on two sides of the 400 block of 29 street. there is a mix of single-family and multi-unit buildings has the
11:48 pm
planner had described. details of a sample of these buildings are shown here. i have quite a few of these. special characteristics are single-family often two units. there is a lot of wood trim and windows. the bay windows typically are narrower than half the width of the building. you'll notice on the proposed design that the bay is quite large. most are angled bay windows and some are square. this last photograph is a terrific example of a two-unit building with a ground floor garage and entry that is just down the street on the opposite side. 36 out of 42 buildings on the
11:49 pm
block are consistent in materials irrespective of the number of units. here is an example of buildings that are inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. these are -- yeah, i'm sorry. in addition, there are two right now buildings that have been mentioned, and i have photographs of them, that have recently been built within the last five years and illustrate the concerns our community has. these are too tall, too out of proportion with the neighborhood. window, detail, sizes, and materials are inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. these are middle windows. everything in the rest of the neighborhood is wood with wood trim. our community would respectfully request that the commission go to current changes to the design to be consistent with the overall character of our neighborhood and reverse this trend of inconsistent and out of
11:50 pm
portion new construction. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is suzanna smith. i live at 427-29 which is right next door. i made this little drawing to just kind of -- so the size compared to ours. and i actually noticed when he showed the 3-d model that the building comes out quite a bit and is going to block light into our -- i'm in the lower unit, into our bay window. it really juts out further than the current building does. that's my newest complaint. what i want to talk about is the light walls. i'm in that lower unit, and i will show you that i -- we have two windows on that light wall. currently the light wall goes
11:51 pm
all the way down to the bottom and we're slightly raised up. so this is one broom that we have that has light. this is the middle of the day. that's where i work most days. you can't -- it's hard to see here, but the light well is not enclosed. it goes all the way to the back of the yard and you can see the yard over here. you can see the sky from the other interior room. this is another bedroom, light coming in during the day. sorry, my copies are really bad. it gets not a ton of light, but it does get light and it gets light all day long. so i am very worried about four storeys going up and it becoming enclosed in that area. it basically means those
11:52 pm
lights -- no light will come in at all. in addition, on the -- i -- the bedroom on the back, that's where i am. that is the current back, so there is a little pathway back there that goes into the light well where the light comes in. we have a rose bush. we have a deck. all of that's going to be much more enclosed as it goes all along the wall. also, i work at home and a few -- about two months ago i heard construction. i went out back. i asked, "what are you doing?" and they said they were taking the asbestos off. i'm pretty sure they didn't have a permit. i should have called. you can see here there is still asbestos up on the top of the building right here. they did no remediation there. so i'm not really feeling very trustworthy about their plans
11:53 pm
and how they're going to think about us in our house next door. i'm a renter of 13 years with my partner. we are non-profit workers and artists. as an idea of having two $3 million homes next door is not really the affordability we need in the city right now. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.
11:54 pm
regulator there am not going to be going on the character, plenty of people brought up the character, and the look and feel of the building. i have a serious issue with having 6500 square-foot house to
11:55 pm
replace a tiny seven and 50 square-foot home. i understand that we are in a housing shortage crisis and we need more help. i am not opposed to demolishing the house to give us to unit, because even if you bill it as 700 times two, that probably is not going to be to the benefit of the developer, they want to sell more square footage. they have to be mindful of the people that live around there. you heard from the tenant that has been living there for 13 years, and she will not be able to afford any of these units. what kind of a university we live in, that someone can, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to build 6500 square feet, and the people that are nearby will not be able to touch that. we are not asking for too much. we are asking for nip and tuck
11:56 pm
to make this building not a menace to the neighborhood, and not set a precedent. mr. weiss has put together a design that is over 1,000 square-foot per floor, and four floors. some of you were that were here five years ago, remember me getting up there and talking about that tower. it was right here on 29th street. let's not have another tower. this is exactly like that. secondly, what is with the light rails? it is clearly stated in the residential design guidelines to match the light rails. mr. weiss, as an architect, should know that. also, i don't know why he didn't get that memo that the standard is 15 feet, front setback.
11:57 pm
commissioner moore you brought this up at a couple of hearings here. pretty much any architect that visit the city of san francisco knows that is standard. 15-foot setback on the front. he is not doing us a favor. my ask is this? make this a little bit more reasonable, even at three stories, i don't think this really is going to be affordable. even if you add an adu, it is not going to be affordable. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is alexander moulder, i am the agent that found the current owner the home. when i found it it was vacant for many years and dilapidated. the fact of the matter is, it was a long home, two bedroom,
11:58 pm
one bath and you can never raise a large family and that. there are people that need four bedrooms to raise a family. he has excellent craftsmanship, he is great and he works with the neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is dino, i am a resident a homeowner i live on 1473 church. i am also a real estate agent here in town. i've gotten the great pleasure to know tom over the past several years, both on a personal and professional level. i understand a lot of the arguments here today about affordability. you cannot get a cappuccino anymore for under $4.50 unfortunately, the only constant
11:59 pm
here is change. i know change is never easy for anybody. if you look around and the various elements that have taken place, this one is in sink and pretty contests the -- consistent with everything that is out there. in the immediate, of course, you will ruffle some feathers, disturb some folks that have been have hating for a long time. i only ask that you really look at this project closely and consider the fact that we are adding another unit and that tom has done several other projects here in the city. he's done a fair bit in claritin height, diamond height. he is very active, and very hands-on. he is very present with the subcontractors. he is a sole proprietor. he does run his own operation. with construction costs being as they are, it only makes sense to
12:00 am
get as much as you can. i understand the fact that you want to keep everybody happy and tried to keep everyone on board with the mission here. tom is building for the next 100 years we had this town was founded in hundreds are so you did here we are in 2019, things have transitioned so much, and i think tom's mission here was to build and try to cater with this economy needs. that is for the next 100 years to have two more unit that are going to help house families that are growing, trying to keep kids here in the city, and keep families together. if you could please give this strong consideration i closely review the plans that tom put together, is architect, mr. wise is an incredible architect. he's very busy working on several projects and he is very credible. they


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on