Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 30, 2010 5:30pm-6:00pm PDT

4:30 pm
>> i would be inclined to agree with project sponsor in looking a the the map and understanding that rare -- railroad area, i'm not sure that's a rear yard space that will be ute hifed much because of the surrounding area and the pact it may -- it may be more desirable to be on the roof instead of back in this. i would tend to support the -- the proposal as forwarded by the project sponsor which i believe is at almost 2% of the lot depth and opposed to the required 25%. it sounds like it is -- been my -- in my mind meets the cite cra needed. so i would make that motion. >> is there a second? >> there's a second. okay. >> i have to -- to comment to
4:31 pm
the architect, mr. morris it looks as he's mentioning, putting it as a contemporary building and you're substituting a contemporary building for what is currently conteven prairie art there. knowing that totally graffiti covered building. been that way for sometime. yeah. i somewhere -- i have -- i have a -- no, go ahead. >> i tend to think that what staff recommended makes a lot of sense. i would like some other commissioners to comment on them. >> i agree. i'm about to say on this. it this is an unusual situation with the railroad spurs around town and in that section of the city because nobody knows what to do with them or how to do
4:32 pm
anything with them. because a lot of them are tied up in litigation and have been for many years. no one is sure who has actual control of them, the majority of which have long been abandoned. >> regarding the 25% issue in the rear. you could request relief through conditional use authorization as opposed to a variance. the intent of that relief was not to allow reductions in the rear yard but a modification in order to generate a better design. wose felt they could immediate the 25%, because otherwise a cocomplying project would have it follow the spur. that's why we thought a 25% was a reasonable compromise. >> commissioner moore? >> i believe staff recommendation is a reasonable way to go.
4:33 pm
i'm fully in support of your analysis on that. >> hearing that, i loo are like to rescind my sicked and get -- rescind my second and get more information. >> with the resense of your second, if there's for other second, the other motion dies. >> is there a flew motion? >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to make the motion that we support the project with the conditions as recommended by staff. >> second. commissioners, on the motion to approve per staff recommendation, commissioner ant neney. >> aye. >> bore do not aye fong aye more aye olague aye miguel aye. >> commissioners, that motion
4:34 pm
passed unanimously. commissioners, you're on item 19, a, b, c. and for reconstruction and variance of 353 san jose avenue and 19 c, case number 2010.10 0 -- for 353 san jose avenue for demolition of the -- of the existing structure. >> good evening. diageo sanchez of the department staff. before i represent a case for ref view under 317, the proposal at 353 san jose to del olish a single family home and replace a multi-family dwelling with four offstreet parking spaces and height of 40 feet. automobile access is through the rear of the lot on to popular street.
4:35 pm
project is also seeking a rear yard variance of the replacement structure. it does not provide the required rear yard of 34 feet eight inches. providing a rear yard of 40 feet six inches. and it exceeds the height. it seeks a dwelling unit of two units directly open on noncode compliant rear yard. where it is required they are on code compliant rear yard or street or alley of 45 feet in width. these will be heard by the administrator. the staff recommendation is not take d.r. and approve demolition of the current home. the project will result in a net gain of three dwelling units, the project will create family sized dwelling units of three or two bedrooms. the project realizes the four units for a zoning district given its lot size. the project would be another
4:36 pm
multi-unit building on san jose avenue and it a appropriate infield development. the resource evaluation determined that the existing building is not a resource land hoork. >> com pigsers without public comment, the staff received three telephone calls regarding this. and the size of project and the loss of private use and the fear the project would spur a wave of condos in the area. this project was required to go through neighborhood notification. that period expired on monday. there were no requests from the public for a additional discretionary review for the project. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> project responser. >> good evening, koll missioners.
4:37 pm
>> my joe good evening commissioners. i'm the owner of 53 san jose avenue. me and my family, we came here in 1970 to san francisco, april of 190e. for most of my -- childhood and adult life, since i been here, we were pretty much tenants here in san francisco. as a matter of fact, my family since we been here has -- relocated forcefully about five times. during our 40 years in san francisco. in september of 2000, during a very hot housing market, after being priced out of several buildings that i thought would be very suitable for my needs in the future, when i say my needs, i my needs for family housing as my kids grow older.
4:38 pm
i happen to acquire 353 san jose avenue. when i acquired the property at that time, it was my intent and still to this very day, 10 years later, from the time that i acquired it, was to build a multi-unit family housing -- to suit the needs of my growing family. my -- at the time i purchased it, me, my wife and we were raising three young children in a one bedroom apartment. so, again, i was not some speculator looking for a quick buck, despite the hot housing market. i was not looking to displace fib. i was looking at the sensitivity of all of the issues that were in front of me, including the sensitivity of my existing tenant who was still with me at the property today. the sensitivity of my aging
4:39 pm
parents when thank god are still with me today. the sensitivity of my kids as they're growing older, taller, wider and who are thank god still with me today. again, it has ailes always been my intention -- it has always been my intention to built a multi-unit family housing for all of us, including me and my wife and my daughter and again, i did not want as i experienced, to have my kids or my parents orb anybody else be at the mercy of some speculators where they were forced out because the building was ill effect or t.i.c. this is probably one of the most desirable and second or third most expensive city in the world. ly to make sure i laid a groundwork to protect this generation and the future generation that is will hopefully come after i'm gone and make sure that they have a place to call home.
4:40 pm
i sincere lie hope that you will -- i sincerely hope you'll support me and my family here tonight. >> thank you. i have one comment card, joe babcock. i live at 37 san jose avenue. i have been there since 1994. i just feel there's a few of these old bungalows on the street that are disappearing. and this house just seems, the proposal seems out of character for the neighborhood. across the street right now, there's the present buildings -- a two-story, i think two people live there next door, they -- the -- another two-story. i wish we could show pictures of
4:41 pm
what these places look like. when you come in and knock those out and put up four-unit building, totally changes the neighborhood. across the street, there's more like a -- you know, early 1900's building. some of my personal concerns are noise and view. i know those don't change your mind because criteria. but knocking down the old bls. there's only a few left in the street that would really change the whole -- the whole look of the place. the gentleman, the owner that just spoke. he's not a 13eck later, et cetera, but i have never seen this guy on street and i lived there for -- 1994 and as i understand it there, are two people in the building. they have been trying to get rid of for several years. i don't know if they're here to comment. i heard other things around the neighborhood. it is unfortunate that you have all had a long day, because there were other people here
4:42 pm
earlier that were going to comment on this. for me, it is the noise and losing the view and especially just -- we didn't need 40-foot buildings every lot on the street. when i came in 1994, we didn't rip our place down. we had taken care of it. i ahead to see these places go. if -- have you seen any of the pictures on these buildings? they're really beautiful. the one right next to it. i'm afraid if this one goes, the one next to it will go too. they probably don't have historical landmark status and if we had the money, we would be researching that but we're all busy people. that's all i have to say. >> additional public comment on the item?
4:43 pm
>> i've visited -- at 53 san jose avenue which is really very much my own. tom's home too. other people that lived there over the years. and for 21 years, over 21 years, and -- i am just very fond of the place. it is an old house. i hate to see old, wonderful old houses built, the turn of the century disappeared too. we have a tree in the backyard that must be nearly 80 years old. raccoons come and climb up and down it. kitties come climb up and down it. we have a skylight with sunshine.
4:44 pm
it is quiet and easy going. it has been. i don't understand why -- why you would need to have your whole family who has pretty much grown oup college age, it is pretty much to come and live in this four-unit place. it sounds to me like you might leave it to them in your will, sure. but you would probably rent it out for pretty good rent in time, very quickly, maybe after it is built. it just sort of edging people out of their lifestyles and their economics and everything to have to -- to give up a place we paid good rent for all of these years and never given any real trouble to. or peace and quiet. a feeling of neighborhood, a feeling of home. so, i mean, i don't really dislike my land lord, i think there's more a lot -- there's a lot more to it than -- it is
4:45 pm
just displacing somebody. it will be a big thing for me. i have -- i have different ills and i always thought i would die in that house, maybe. it is that strong a feeling. it is a very, very good feel about that house. i hate to see it demolished, even if i wrt going to live there tomorrow. do i. i really do. that's what i have to say. i don't want to see the tree go. it is a beautiful tree. >> thank you. >> additional public comet on the item? >> my name is sheik. i'm part of 661, 663 val lepsia street, i own a hotel there with
4:46 pm
two commercial spaces underneath. i think it would be a great asset for my family to be congregated closer with sheik who had the property for almost 10 years now. me and my family live on valencia, not only is he a cousin of mine and -- but his wife and my wife are sisters. i think it would be a great asset for him to be close to us. not only that, i think it is -- it is every parent's dream to have a home, a permanent home for their kids. i think that -- i don't think there's anything wrong with what he's doing. ultimately it is his -- it is his property. so i'm just here to say please don't shatter his dream. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is sheik.
4:47 pm
i have been living here for a long, long time. i came the year 1970. as a student. what -- in the hotel -- worked in the hotel and worked in san francisco at one time. old man. i property my family in the year 1970 and we had a two-room apartment, two rooms in the hotel. and since then, we do not seem to help enjoy it, the luxury of having big houses or anything like that. now my son is building an apartment complex let's say four units. and i am going to be -- and my wife is going to be occupying one of them. so, i have -- i have -- i have to go on to ask you, you folks
4:48 pm
to approve this building so we could -- we could live in the -- in this & but that would be board members and the family and the kids and the families would be united. there would be schools nearby. there would be a church or the islamic center nearby. and that -- there would be other members of the family in -- in the -- in the close area. i'm almost disabled at this moment and is going to be. i expect my family to look after and have to be close to them. so, i have to request you just to grant this permission to build. it complex at 440. thank you so much. >> additional public comment on
4:49 pm
this item? >> hello, my name is selma sheik, i'm the daughter of the owner. like my father stated earlier, he's not looking to make a quick buck. he's not a speculator. he's making an investment in our future. my brother will attend san francisco state university which fall. like he said, i spent the first 13 years of my life in a studio, one bedroom apartment, one bathroom. so as you could see, he has my best interests, my brother's best interests at heart. he just wants us to be settled. he wants us to comfortable and live a comfortable life, something he didn't get to do in his childhood. he's making a investment that will be beneficial to his family. please consider that when you making this decision. >> thank you.
4:50 pm
additional public comment on this item? >> my name is vanna shay and i'm the mer of three young adult kids. i want this plan to approve because i want to leave with my family & want to keep my parents in with me and it is not possible in the small places. so please consider this and prove this. thank you. >> additional public comment? >> hello, everybody. me and my wife and my two kids my house is nearby. my -- my sister, she's applying
4:51 pm
for the full yount. my mother she's handicapped and my father lives in the -- nearby. my brother -- my three other brothers live really close. we all are brother and sister and our community of us, what is islamic center is there. all 30, 40 houses. it is very nearby. so my sister she want to come and -- in this neighborhood so she could watch my mother and my father and brother they all stay together. i'm requesting everybody please consider this and please allow him to build it. >> additional public comment? >> thank you my name is jacob.
4:52 pm
the site of the steet. i believe my handicapped wife alone. off large family, son, grandson and granddaughter. my son-in-law, sheik and daughter who want to -- who want to project. please be kind enough to grant the project and thanks. >> thank you. >> is there additional public comment on this item? >> my name is sheik and this is my sister and brother-in-law. i've lived in the same neighborhood for 15 years. i'm only the house. i'm 0 to everybody close to me. i want to see what next to us. so i like to want to stay with us and i get together. i'm happy for seeing each other.
4:53 pm
thank you. additional public comment? >> i think our point was made, the tenant was marilyn allen. i'm tom church. he's been a pretty good land hoard for us overall. that's not the issue. i think our point has been made, i will say quickly again to reiterate the one thing about the tree. if we have to go, you know, we witnessed a house next door to us get demolished. the -- and at that time the owner said, we want to save those three trees in the back and -- you know, i'm not the owner of the prts, so i can't dictate terms. i'm wondering if the city has some kind of policy about special trees. this is a -- a very tall avocado stree in the backyard that --
4:54 pm
you know our estimation is 80 years old. it is a special tree. just like -- to take that into consideration, maybe -- maybe in the building or the new building and -- whatever you decide. we respect. >> additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. additional public comment? >> no. >> if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i like to discuss that we're in a r.m. 2 district. we're seing a lot that is being proposed for four drawing units. staff recommendation analyzes that the prevailing height is not more than three stories, however, what is in front of us is a four-story building. in addition to that this particular project requires a
4:55 pm
variance and i am in no position to have a building which is excessive in height and excessive also in bulk to be approved without trying to challenge it. i'm not opposed for this large of family to build a -- a four-dwelling unit house. however,, i am looking for more skillled architecture, this project puts an extreme emphasis on stairs galore. i would say briefly glancing at drawing -- i would say easily 15 to 20% of this house is in multiple stairs. instead of combining stairs and minimizing stairs because we are being confronted with the family where we're told that there would be elderly and handicapped people who have -- who have difficulties moving up and downstairs, i would assume that concentrating, common stairs, with perhaps an elevator on four stories would be a building which would be much more suitable to the intent of how the family represents its case.
4:56 pm
again i'm all interested in multi-family. i'm all interested in this family to really find the home of their dreams. i do believe that the architectures in front of us is not meeting the challenge or is anything i can approve as it is in front of me. we can perhaps -- yeah. >> continue the project. i don't think i have a time limit on my speaking. i think we can continue the project. we have worked with this architect before. asked him to really create a unit or a -- or a combination of units which really expresses the needs of the family and then on top of that is really more in keeping with the overall neighborhood and not to exceed three stories. i would also like to have some cut-ins for the smaller -- two unit dwelling as to either side and instead of -- having in stetback -- setback at all or no notching. i think there should be a respect for the smaller units if indeed we're going in our r.m. 2
4:57 pm
to what basically is an r. 4. i put this to the commission for consideration. my motion would be to continue this project, no decisions made as no-no, we're not saying you can't doo this. but we want to basically more responsive design. >> second. >> motion and second to continue. what date? >> i think it takes easily eight to 10 weeks to redesign the building. >> february at some point. february 10th or 1r7b? >> 10rks giss. >> 150r? >> february 10th. >> i can respond, what do you think? what is thu1 what's the challenge to you and your calendar?
4:58 pm
>> could you clarify the date, please? >> february 10 or february 17 in >> i think february 10 is good enough for us. >> thank you. >> commissioner, on the floor is a motion foner, on the floor is a motion for continuance february 10th. public hearing remains open and basically it's to consider a redesign of the project. >> that's correct. >> sorry. i was just going to say, i think the direction of commissioner moore's comments are to lessen the amount -- lessen or eliminate the need for variances and other match nations that are
4:59 pm
being asked of this commission. >> ok. on the motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner saguy? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. all three components of this item are continued until february 10. commissioners, you are now on item number 20. 2010.057od for 2441 mission street. >> good evening president miguel and members o6 c1 street. >> good evening president miguel and members of the commission. before you this evening is mandatory discretionary review

188 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on