Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 16, 2014 7:30am-8:01am PST

7:30 am
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. david nolan. native city san francisco. when i was going to school i got art language which we don't get offered in school today. the marsh provides that as after school programs for children. i spent too much time in the war, but thanks to the marsh i got to see a play for the price of a movie which was about depression and like i said i spent too much time in the war and i suffer from depression from the war due to ptsd and it gave me courage to
7:31 am
seek help from the veterans administration. so that was due to the marsh. so i hope i know this is a difficult issue, but i hope we can help the marsh as best we can. thank you for your time and consideration. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is john. i'm a performer. i performed at the marsh a lot for over 20 years. and hugely indebted to the marsh for being a place where i and other artist can develop. i would like to confirm that i'm in favor of the adoption of all the draft findings and conditions. i'm delighted by how reasonable these are and how governmental bodies have been able to find a way to have a wonderful artistic organization interacting with
7:32 am
the new housing place. i think it all seems very reasonable to us to keep the noise out to support the marsh theatre. it's in incredibly important as other speakers have spoken to, to have silent and comfort and to be able to listen is really important. i think the agreements in g and h when people move in that they can sign and they know this theatre this wonderful theatre next door and there will be some noise and that they understand that and it's really great and reasonable. i also just want to add as a former professional copy editor, the fact that the three dot lipses has been added
7:33 am
by this board. >> good evening. at the last hearing the board was not recommending or stating that they should remove 3 units. the board was merely saying they should remove a floor. they could create as many units as they want in the existing four floors. further more i have to agree with commissioner hwang, these condominium units will not be affordable based on the initial price plus hoa duce. the board was right to find that this project as presented did not comply with the mission area plan or the general plan. the board rightly found at the last hearing that the building needed to be reducing in size and impact. the san francisco
7:34 am
general plan states that the housing element should promote the construction and rehabilitation a well design housing that emphasizes beauty, flexibility and innovative design and respects existing neighborhood character." the housing policien insures that densities established residential areas promote compatibility with the prevailing neighborhood character. i just urge you to uphold your findings and as stated in the december 11th hearing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm kenny, a resident of san francisco. i'm in favor of adoption of all the findings by commissioners. thank you so
7:35 am
much. i wanted to point out item j limiting construction to 4:00 p.m.. the youth classes start earlier. the marsh has been reasonable. i think it would be really prudent to let people who are buying the condominiums next door. since we last all were here on december 11th, i want to point out the san francisco chronicle published their best theatre. their mvp is david ford, the marsh's master developer is helping performers find their voices and craft their stories makingt san francisco the general leader. new york and london are known as world class theatres. this little humble theatre has brought san
7:36 am
francisco up tot the front now. please support the arts and marsh in san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my name is lynn lombardy oh. a 30-year resident. i have stood in front of this august board with different people sitting in the seats. several different times over the last 25 years. and what i want to say is that i trust you. this board as a body whether it's you or someone else, your predecessors who have been sitting, making decisions that affect neighborhoods. i trust you. i have seen good decisions that are contentious on 24th street and have seen them work out for
7:37 am
the residents who are the ones that are left with the bad decisions. there are two, i see two issues. one is the short-term issue of the construction. i urge you to adopt the findings as they are because short-term effects on the marsh have long-term reverberation. these are acceptable and manageable. i also trust the developers that they have the ability to manage a project within these guidelines and to make a profit doing so. these are not outrageous findings or requirements. and in the long-term, the developer goes away and it's the residence of the valencia corridor, it's the people and performers of the marsh and the residents of the
7:38 am
12 units that have the lasting effect. >> in all the 25 years all the faces have changed maybe with the exception of commissioner fung? [ laughter ] >> thank you. i grew up here. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, my name is john barbie. i would like to encourage you to stand by your december 11th decision. i have lived in the neighborhood for 28 years. actually longer than that since 1978 and it was a very correct decision. appealing housing is not
7:39 am
working against the entire neighborhood. it's a very simple process there. they can still contribute to our neighborhood and our corridor and i think it was a very good decision and very well thought out. and i plead you to stand by your prior decision. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening, i'm kirk boden, san francisco resident. i have attended the marsh several times and i'm in favor of the findings and conditions of the draft. it's what makes san francisco san francisco and makes people want to build condos and move into there. it's fragile. the contractor
7:40 am
might not know about this. the new tenants might not beware of that fragility. the marsh is a rare and endangered species. i think we should protect it and ensure it's survival. i respectfully request that you adopt the findings and conditions and keep it here where it's a valuable and beloved institution. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is judy kerts and also a long term resident of san francisco. i wasn't planning to speak. i just wanted to make a point in addition to the many points that have made in support of your determination. and that is that there is several people brought up the issue of affordable housing and i just want to say your determinations
7:41 am
really have nothing to do with affordable housing. there are many units that have sold in that neighborhood, condos for $1.5 million and i hardly believe that is affordable housing and that is not going to increase the affordable housing stock in addition to the developer has not promised to build any affordable housing on site. thank you. >> next speaker? >> hi. i'm david. critical on the affordable housing, the builder refused to put affordable housing into those units. if you want to put them back, i certainly ask that you commit to put the affordable units in there. also let me say the builder seems to be startled to discover that as
7:42 am
the property is next to a very active theatre, that special accommodations are subsequently required during construction. that fact proves that prospective purchasers need to be aware of that there is a theatre next door. good evening. my name is william harris and i'm a performer at the marsh theatre. and like many who have spoken here tonight and before, i have benefited from being a part of that community. but even more important, i have been allowed
7:43 am
to be a teaching artist for the marsh theatre to camp with 7 and 8 and 9-year-olds. it's a very -- what's the word? it's not easiest environment in order to keep the little ones focused. i really am concerned about the sound and the problems that could occur. also we use valencia. the students go lunch at the park down the street, we take them to the water park and students coming back and forth to class. it's a neighborhood associations and most kids are walking with parents and construction would be detrimental to that as well. an as performer myself and teaching artist, i urge you to go forward with your findings.
7:44 am
thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm gene gore. i'm a performer and student at the marsh and as several people said to me today when i was talking about coming here, oh the marsh is so wonderful. it's one of the few places where you get really quality marvelous original unique programming and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get it. and the marsh i can go on and on for the many things that it has to offer. that are unique to san francisco. and i urge you to adopt the proposal that you
7:45 am
made in december 11th when i was here. we were all so happy and i do agree tla they are reasonable and that people need to know that they are going to be living next door to a wonderful theatre and that there should not be noise after 4:00 p.m.. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. again i want to ask the folks sitting in the doorway to please move. that is a fire hazard. please take a seat. thank you. commissioners? >> okay. anyone want to start? >> sure, i will start. i'm in full support of the draft findings with perhaps some slight modifications that were
7:46 am
suggested by the appellants and i think that, well i would like to thank executive director goldstein for drafting our findings so accurately and so well. the question in my mind is whether one of the arguments that was raised by the code section j applies here. that's the primary question in my mind and maybe as an attorney, maybe i'm being overall cautious but i do want to make sure our findings rest on the law and status that apply. so i would want further briefing on the definition of housing development project and authority for how this project specifically fits within cal
7:47 am
government code section 65855.j, neither has addressed or briefed on this. i have no basis on this point to decide whether we need to take into consideration the permit holders arguments that we need to make specific findings about public health and safety under that code section. >> anybody else? >> i'm certainly not comfortable with that issue at the moment. so if you would support a continuance for a briefing purposes? >> yes, i think i might like some further comment from our own city attorney. >> at that point? >> during. if we are going to continue it for additional briefing that would be fine. >> okay. i too notwithstanding
7:48 am
my view of the appeals should fall and i believe in support of the findings, i do, like my company commissioners want our findings and our rulings to stand up, i think it's unfortunate that the question on the housing affordability act, i believe that was, accountability act was raised sort of in this context rather than at the time we were discussing issue but it has been presented. i want to address it. i would like to see some briefing on it. i think that would be useful for us and for to come to a decision on how we, to what extent we need to if at all modify the findings as written. >> comments? >> you know, as a lay person
7:49 am
and not an attorney, i had to read that government code at least five times. and at this point just for my view it appears to apply. but i will accept the further briefing. i presume that the city will do some briefing on this also. >> well, not necessarily. this is for the advocates to present to us. i think we would expect the commentary, but it's not -- we can ask for advice, but briefing to submit for a hearing is -- >> well, at some point, this particular issue has got to be addressed. if it applicable to the city in some form or
7:50 am
another to what extent and it applies to a lot of the decision making not necessarily at our board, but at policy boards such as planning and housing. >> i would definitely welcome the advice, i just don't want actual briefing. the advice we would get is advice for our own purposes but not briefing for public record here. that's my view. >> okay. >> we do want briefing from the parties? >> right. >> may i ask one question of the zoning administrator? >> of course. >> mr. sanchez? at the current, with the current project they fall under requirement to provide to low income and moderate income is that correct? >> that is correct. there was a 15 percent requirement for affordable housing and it's now
7:51 am
reducing due to prop c to 12 percent. it would have triggered 2 units. now under current requirements it's 1. it was by prop c by last december of 2012. >> they have pretty strict guidelines as to affordability? >> it's for the mayor's office of housing. >> it's not optional by the developer. >> they choose how they comply. they must choose by the departmental action. the fee is the first option and they can provide it off site or on-site. >> it's through housing? >> it's implemented through the mayor's office of housing. we work with them and we develop the approval and attach the entitlement. >> you said currently as the propose project is sitting now
7:52 am
it would still need to supply one? >> so the new project were to be submitted and approved, it would be subject to the current controls of triggering one. it's my understanding that given that this was approved prior to the effective date of prop c and it was heard by the planning commission prior to that date that was requirement and the fact that they are required to provide two. i can confirm that with the city attorneys office. the rules are complex and change law. >> i don't understand, mr. sanchez. the current, two affordable housing units were required. >> if the project was submitted today? >> as it stood prior to prop c? >> with 15 percent requirement. >> when it gets reduced to 9
7:53 am
units is it still required? >> no. it was restricted to 9 units and would not trigger the affordable requirements. >> isn't it true there is pending legislation to change that? >> i don't think it would change the threshold. what supervisor wiener introduced yesterday was a density bonus. if you are providing 20 percent of affordable housing there would be a density bonus. i'm not aware of the pending legislation to change the threshold for the number of units. it was adopted by prop c and would require voter. if it was voter mandated and also legislative changes and the threshold may have been a legislative change and something the board of supervisors could change. but i'm not aware of any legislation that would change that at this time. >> okay. >> i'm trying to figure out whether i should ask this now or at the next time we meet. one of the things i'm curious
7:54 am
about is at least one of the public commenters indicated that by taking off a floor doesn't necessarily reduce the number of units. to what extent is that anything outside of the developer zone discretion with respect to these affordable units and that requirement? >> you are correct that your decision does not mandate a number of units to the building or limited to no more than 10 units. it's conceive that believe they could still provide 12 units within the building, that said we have not seen plans and reviewed plans. they have to meet requirements. given the configurations, that is a corner lot that they have three possible option to provide exposure. but certainly they would be smaller units. we would need to review it. it seems that it could be possible for the same number of units in a smaller building.
7:55 am
>> the caveat in the eastern neighborhoods require larger units. they have to be larger units. >> that would be part of your analysis? >> yes. if they came with the proposal for 12 units and 4 stories. >> the neighborhood design? okay. >> we would have to review it. >> okay. thank you. >> you want to make a motion? >> yeah, i would move to continue to a new briefing particular to the government code section. i don't know how many pages you want to limit it to. >> 5 pages? is that more than enough? what would you suggest? i think that i would like to, do you think 5 pages
7:56 am
is too few? >> [inaudible] >> give them more? okay. i agree. i would like to actually read something that is useful. 10 pages, please. >> president hwang do you want briefing submitted at the same time or cross brief? >> i think same time is fair. >> exhibits allowed? >> if there are cases. i mean, i don't know what else would be helpful here. this is a question of law. >> so 10 pages of briefing with exhibits allowed and due at the same time which is prior to the hearing. when would you like to schedule this hearing. how far out? i i don't know what our
7:57 am
calendar look like. sooner rather than later. >> it should be a week from tomorrow. >> that's too soon. i think we should -- listen to the briefing prior. >> thank you commissioners, andrew genius for the applicant. as soon as possible and 10 pages would be fantastic. thank you. >> okay. so the practitioner. i want more time for this especially if we are doing 10 pages. >> you don't to have give us 10. >> i understand. and maybe a little direction. i mean the code section is applicable but it doesn't compel a particular result. >> make that in your brief.
7:58 am
>> we need to hear arguments. >> the next one is the 25th. >> we have an absence that night. >> yeah. >> february 12th is relatively full calendar with a couple of items that i expect? >> you mean the 19th? >> yeah. i'm sorry. we expect a little bit of public here. >> sorry, potentially i maybe absent on the 19th. >> the 26? wednesday prior. so
7:59 am
that's the motion. >> i'm sorry. one more clarification. every other aspect of this hearing is closed. no other issues can be raised? >> on this brief, all we want is the brief on that question, that's all. >> the question of the applicability of the government code. >> is it possible to vote on the unrelated conditions this evening? >> no. >> okay. so there is a motion by the commissioner hurtado to continue the matter to allow the parties to submit briefs on the application to the project at issue in these appeals. these briefs maybe 10 pages, no more than 10 pages, double spaced, exhibits are allowed and all due thursday prior to the hearing date. please call the roll on that. >> other than that motion to
8:00 am
continue to february 26th, commissioner fung, aye, president hwang, aye, vice-president lazarus? aye, commissioner honda? aye. the vote is 5-0. these matters are continued to february 26th. >> this is appealing the revocation on november 1, 2013 of ramp taxing medallion number 9060. we'll start with the attorney, you have seven minutes. >> good ein

23 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on