tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 26, 2019 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
negotiations with jamie over the past few months in particular. we were hoping to come here today and tell you we're 100% in support of this. we're almost there. just this morning i heard from the project sponsor, mr. chapman, and he confirmed that they are willing to cover any displaced income for up to five years if the project takes that long. so we're really pleased to hear that. so what it's down to is us formalizing that agreement for local edition and for the relocation of the lark and cass into the building. we're pleased to be at this point. and the project sponsor has agreed within the next two weeks that we will get all of those deals done. so we'd like to preserve our opportunity and right to file an appeal if the project is approved to make sure that these agreements are achieved and fair. thank you for your
consideration. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. hi commissioners, my name is doug. we operate three businesses in the retail ground floor and basement of the historic hearst building. i would just like to reiterate we've been working in good faith with jma and the group. and we would like to support hearst corporation, who has been an incredible landlord for us throughout the years. and supporting both our employees and our businesses. we would like assurances in case of project overruns that may delay the project. but j.m.a. has been very forth coming in the recent few days and has provided more and more assurances so we're hoping to finalize that in the upcoming two weeks.
but we would like to reserve our right to appeal this project if for some reason those don't come through. thank you for your time and consideration for helping small businesses. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon. this project was presented to our projects and policy committee in december of last year. and in general, we are expressing our support for the proposed design and features through the project. it's important to note that the hearst building while incredibly significant is not currently designated as a city landmark. through this project, that will take place. the building will be nominated for the national register of historic places. the process for qualifying for
federal historic tax credit is really the gold standard in terms of preservation projects. and that was really influential in our support for the project. it will be and has been subject to rigorous review, not only at the state level, but also at the federal level. it's also worth noting that the sponsor here has made several changes, both in response to input from the state office of historic preservation as well as heritage, and others to ensure that the building's integrity and significance is maintained going forward. i won't list them here. but several changes have been made throughout that process and this building will be preserved going forward. as personal significance for me as well, i worked in this building for several years at the national trust for historic preservation. i'm very familiar with the building and it is magnificent and i'm happy to see it
preserved. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm david sternberg executive vice president with brookfield and one of the assets is the building, a neighbor to the subject property. here to speak in favor of it. we have in our less than five years of ownership of the neighboring property, which you all know we went through a significant update and renovation of that historical property, and so we're thrilled to learn that they're going to be doing as a neighbor. we think it will be transformational to the neighborhood. they've also been very good partners in supporting other improvements that we have privately funded to help improve upgrades that are going to take place on annie street as well. so we really think this is a great addition. and no pun intended, the owner of the local edition may become a partner with us.
we'd be thrilled to have them be part of the property next door. we think it's terrific. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is kathy, i'm the executive director of the community benefit district and we submitted a letter to you with public realm improvements we'd like to advocate for as related this project. we have shared this information with the project sponsor and had good conversations with them, but i want to make sure you have that and saw that. we have particular concerns around stephenson street and how that is going to function. i was standing out there last night trying to watch how the traffic flowed, and it was congested quite a bit. but we think there is going to be additional congestion because it remains back of house for the
hearst property and the palace and how that will co-exist is important to us for traffic flow, pedestrian safety, et cetera. the only other thing i want to talk about, is the displacement of small businesses in the city. this is one of the few buildings i think that is left in the city, at least in this part of the city, that has small office space for businesses. and so the project sponsor that offered to help assist all of us in finding additional space, so i hope we all hold them accountable to that. in our particular case, we have to stay within the boundaries of our neighborhood and it's quite expensive, everything is expensive. but there is going to potentially be a loss of small businesses in the city, so i hope you take that into consideration as well. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is maryam. i'm speaking as a member of the small business capacity, i do sit on a commission like you, a
small business commission. renovation and evictions are happening left and right in the city. small businesses are being affected and especially businesses with regulatory licenses like alcohol have a really hard time relocating. i would like to encourage the sponsors of this project to give the businesses affected tangible insurance their needs will be met throughout the duration of the process and likewise encourage you, commissioners, to allow for ample time for the agreements between the sponsors and the businesses. and make sure it's codified before anything is issued regarding this project. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, commissioner. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is justin boyle, manager of local edition. i talk on behalf of the staff of local edition.
many of us, location, location, location, we need that spot. it's how we live in the city, continue to thrive. we're in support of the plan, we wanted to answer sure that we have the reassurance that the transition is smooth, because we're a big staff, we're family, we love being here. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners, my name it mary cob, i'm the bartender at local edition. i just wanted to take a few minutes to tell you what local edition means to me and i know i speak to our staff as well. we have a large turnout today. i moved to san francisco almost a decade ago because like so many other young people, i saw this place that was a paradise to artists, individuals and anyone that ever kind of felt like they didn't fit in. and i just wanted to be part of
this wonderfully diverse and accepting colorful culture that is so unequivocally san francisco. since moving here, i found all that and more. i fell under this amazing craft cocktail scene that is unrivalled, it's one of the best in the world. i think anyone could say that. and i feel super fortunate. i've been working with future bars for five years and been with local edition almost three of those. local edition is simply put, just a power house. we are well known to be one of the busiest bar, if not the busiest in the city. any craft cocktail. it's the place to work to more easily afford a decent lifestyle in what we all know is an expensive city. after having my rent controlled apartment sold from under me, i
had to move with my two dogs, which you know is hard to do. it's more expensive than it was before. and fortunately, with my income from local edition, i also have a 401k, i have medical coverage, dental, so do all of our employees that work 21 hours a week for more, so i feel super fortunate to have this career and still maintain those benefits. not only is local edition our home away from home, that we love dearly, but it's one of the handful of bars that still has live jazz. and we don't have to cover charge to hear the live jazz. it is an important part of the community to those arts easily accessible to people. so i've always been under the impression that our lease would be upheld. it hope that it is. i hope we can stay. and i hope we don't have to spend any time without our
paychecks. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm laura. i'm with cbre in the city. i have team based in san francisco that focuses on retail consulting and leasing. i'm here to speak in favor of the project. and i think that we all know that having the addition of hotel guests that will be in and out, outside of just the hours of 9 to 5 will be improvement to the area and from a retail standpoint, just thinking about supporting the businesses that we need more support for in the area, that will be a helpful addition. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i lead the monday night jazz orchestra at local edition and i represent the other musicians
and performers that play. i'm of course in support of the project and hope that all assurances will be honored to have smooth transitions during this redevelopment. my main concern is that if there is any lack of continuity in, let's say, the refurbishment of the local edition space. if there is any break there or any ability to move to another location, that there is no break. all those musicians will lose significant amount of income. just to remind you, these are high level professionals musicians that most of them are conservatory trained, most have bachelor's degrees, many have masters and that means that the younger ones, who are just starting to ply their trade, are it still paying back ridiculous student loans related to that education. so basically, just wanted to
make sure that things go smoothly and everyone is on bard with things going smoothly. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> how are you doing? my name is ross lewis. i'm the manager of lack bar. we took over the bar in 2016 and we've created a great neighborhood bar in the downtown area which are quite a scarcity these days. we've developed a community spirit in the bar between the people who work in the area and employees that work for future bars that come there and tourists and visitors to san francisco alike. so i hope the project has a smooth transition that we can move to the new building and recreate that atmosphere there and maintain a good neighborhood bar in the downtown area. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. okay, with that, public comment is closed on this item.
commissioners? >> commissioner richards: it's a great project. i'm happy to see the level of engagement, especially with the lark bar and the cass, et cetera. happy to see a historic building come back to life. i think a hotel is probably a better use for the building, given like one of the speakers said, 9 to 5 populates it's and then it's dead the rest of the time. one question for the project sponsor, floors 2-5 currently have small businesses in them? what is the plan for assisting them relocation? they plan to come back? what is the general plan? >> sure, so we've been meeting
with individual tenants in the course of the last two years. we've hired a firm that specializes in small tenants. we have five not-for-profits in the building, we're working with them. the project likely won't start until 2021, so we're definitely honoring all the leases in the building and we'll be asit cyst -- assisting them in the next 24 months. >> commissioner koppel: i like the project as well. i toured the site and there is a lot of interesting architecture and historic elements. i'm totally fine with what is to be demoed on the roof. there is a lot of stuff up there added later on. i don't think it's very necessarily historic. and i do like the relocation of the entrance to stephenson. that third kearny market intersection is an oddball one and i wouldn't want to see
things get locked up on market street. you have three bars we're looking at. and then larkin and cass are taken care of, but local edition is not? >> yes, we do not have executed agreements for local edition. and also not for cassk and lark. we're 99% there, but for local edition, we still do not have executed agreements. >> i remember last time we heard this, that was the thing i asked for, the local businesses -- >> that was one thing i asked, assurance that those local businesses would not even ever potentially be moving or kind of rent-evict
rent-evicted. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. one, i think this is a good reuse of this building. i agree with commissioner richards. i think it's conversion to a hotel use will be great. it will give the opportunity for those that don't necessarily work in the building to go into it and see some of the structure, the lobby, and the floors. it's a great reuse. but, mr. chapman, questions have come up about the tenants, particularly local edition, can you tell us where you are with that? they're obviously great uses. i think they have shown that here today. and those of us who have gone there know that. can you talk about your commitment and plan for them? >> sure. i think as i've said before, the commission before, we absolutely support and want mr. sheehy and his business at local edition to stay in the building. it's how we expect to position
the hotel at the end of the day. we're providing incentive for him to stay. we're finalizing a package to make sure he and his employees are taken care of during the disruption. and we're also going above and beyond that and extending their term beyond the current expiration date. we do want them in the space. >> do you think it's possible to stay during the renovation? >> not completely during. there is safety issues and seismic work in the space. with eexpect that -- we expect that to be less than two years, 18 months, but we'll need to work through that with the construction teams to make sure the space is safe. >> i think ultimately it would be a great marriage between the future use of this as a hotel and kind of the flavor that you have for the businesses that are there would be great. but there is these pains during
the process which, it sounds like you're all making good progress, and hopefully that will continue and you'll get an agreement on that. because i think ultimately, this is a good project and should be approved. and mr. sheehy, you mentioned you want to preserve your right to talk about this and appeal. i think you've got that. this has to ultimately go to the board of supervisors and certainly you have the right to appeal the conditional use. but i think this is a good reuse for this site and encourage you to continue in good faith those discussions so we can have the benefit of both mr. sheehy's decision and the reuse of this building. >> agreed. >> commissioner hillis: thanks. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to express my support for the building before i go into detail. i would also like to support the notion to pay close attention to the relocation or the perpetual
use. i do like the idea of the building potentially a location of some of those enterprises. what is proposed is actually a very smooth and wonderful addition of an office building to a hotel. the size of office suites on the upper floor seeps to be perfect -- seems to be perfect for the hotel room and the conditioning. and the condition of the building particularly those floors above 5 are original and i can see it to be just a smooth adaptation to a different use. i looked at the rooftop, and while i was originally concerned about the morgan piece, they are small, like pieces, that probably can be used, but they're more ornamental in
nature. it is inconsequential space in its own right. it has been completely reworked. it looks -- i don't know what it's being used for, if it's being used at all. and i do not see any need to support it in any form other than two small ornamental pieces. there is some good old drawings, i think, unfortunately, only replications, but i would love to see them reused. but otherwise,i think the transformation on the building, even on the upper level, is going to bring that building into a much better relationship with the adjoining buildings at the corner where it is. again, i'm in support of what is in front of us. and very much looking forward for this adaptation to occur without a lot of fanfare, particularly, we do not need a huge construction site at that
particular corner. >> commissioner koppel: question for mr. chapman again. again, thank you for all the conversations and dialogue with all the existing tenants. how long do you think you might need to get something memorialized with mr. sheehy? >> i agreed over the next couple of weeks, in the appeal window, we expect to get the documents done. they've been drafted, it's just finalizing the terms. >> president melgar: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: there is one point, i was concerned about stevenson when i toured the site. we all talked about that, the location of the droppoff is very close to the intersection. it is a very complicated street and will require more than just one owner to pick up how to resolve it. this has a major circulation corridor for multiple garages. people cutting across a major artery, that being 3rd street,
is in itself every night a miracle. so i think that challenge is ahead, but i think that traffic and transportation of the city needs to help resolve that. >> president melgar: i will also say i'm supportive of the project. this is a magical building. and the preservation plans are outstanding, so i'm really excited about it. i'm also excited that you have done so much work with labor and with the local preservation community. i think that's really outstanding. i'm looking forward to having some life on stephenson. i actually think that's a great little street. you know, and how it ends, there is potential there for a lot of street life and for some magic to happen. and be extended from the building. right now, it's kind of dead. and you know, i think that with some smart -- with the entrance
being on there and also some smart landscaping and potential uses, it could happen. so did you -- >> i did. i agree. i think in particular, our design and i think one of the commissioners mentioned, really kinds of opens up the stephenson and third street corner. third street is busy. it's one way. right now, you stare at a blank fake veneer brick wall. i think by opening that up, drawing people inside, activating that corner, because there will be a service entrance, so there will be staff there most of the day. i think all of that is going to help and working with mr. sternberg, mr. combs on the other side of stephenson is going to be really important, but i think there is a great opportunity to make that quiet vinet in the city. >> i want to move to approve items 11a, b and c, with the
hope that out of our realm of land use approvals, that mr. sheehy and the project sponsor get together, that would be great. but i would make -- >> president melgar: the motion, with the amendment for the revised -- >> yeah. >> second. >> just to be clear. if we can make sure we get a copy of the agreement you signed. not that's it's a condition of the approval, just so we can report back to the commission on that agreement. that would be great. thank you. >> commissioner koppel: i wish i could let this go. i'm not trying to hold the project up. i clearly stated i want to move the project forward. i'm highly in favor of it. can we continue this two weeks and then put this on consent with the memorialized agreement?
>> president melgar: go ahead, director. i would not be in support of that because i feel like we've got a pretty good idea. and mr. sheehy does have a process that he can pursue if this doesn't happen and the sponsor has said he intends to get it done before that. but you know, we have a process here. >> just remember, this does have to go to the board of supervisors because it's -- because there is a small zoning change. so we could certainly relay your concern to the board as well when we make the presentation there and make sure that the agreement is in hand once it's signed. i understand your concern, commissioner, i hate to kind of hold it up at this point.
>> president melgar: i will just add, this is a pet peeve of mine. i think this is really excessive. i know that there are commissioners who like getting the paper and some members of the public. i have a big screen on my desk precisely for this. this makes me feel really guilty environmentally. so please, don't do this. >> commissioner richards: just to address commissioner koppel's concern. i think mr. sheehy has ace in the hole that the project sponsor knows there is a two-week time period here. the ability to appeal is 30 days. it sounds like they're acting in good faith. i feel comfortable that we're going to be good. >> there is nothing further. >> can i make one more comment? the request for the copy of the agreement. i deferred to mr. sheehy, but i imagine that is a document that contains a lot of things other
than just the terms of our extension, so maybe we can send some other type of document? >> well, just a signed letter that you've come to agreement on the arrangement, that would be fine. thank you. >> if there is nothing further and no motion to continue, there is a motion seconded to approve. the planning code amendment, downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization as have been amended on the motion. so moved. that motion passes 5-1, with commissioner koppel voting against. item 12, has been continued one week to may 2. placing us on item 13. if those members of the public leaving the chamber could do so quietly. item 13, 2015-015789, 828
brannan street. large project authorization. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. i have for you an amended executive summary and draft motion correcting minor errors in editing and planned submittal changes related to reduced open space and bike parking. you have before you, a request for large project authorization as 828 brannan street. the project includes demolition of existing 12,605 two story industrial building and new construction of a 7-story over basement, 68-foot tall mixed use building with 50 dwelling units, 2004 square feet of retail use,
22 parking spaces, 52 class 1 and 62 class 2 bike parking spaces. it includes two bedrooms, 10 one-bedrooms, 7220 square feet of open space via ground floor courtyard, roof deck and then private open spaces on balconies. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant large project authorization as part of the large project authorization, the commission may grant exceptions for projects that exhibit outstanding overall design and are complementary to the surrounding area. the proposed project request modifications from rear yard, and dwelling unit exposure. department staff is generally in agreement with the proposed modifications, given the overall
project, its unique configuration and design. the department has received one inquiry from an adjacent neighbor at 360 lankton street regarding the height of the project and the context of the surrounding area. the project will be providing onsite affordable housing at 18% or 9 of the 50 units, which will become part of the inclusionary housing program for rent. the project sponsor worked with the department staff on the overall design and the project has changed over time in the following ways. the open space was reconfigured from two court yards to one large rear yard at grade. there was improvement on the langton street residential entries that now have recessed entries. the connection of the top portion of the building to the ground where the brick material.
balconies were set in from the facade and the material was changed to increase capacity. the roof deck has also been set back five feet from the building edge. the department finds that the project is on balance with the show case scare plan and the objectives and policies of the san francisco general plan. overall, the building design and scale compliments the neighborhood and is consistent for height and density in the area. the project is in an area that is designated to encourage new housing and provide 50% of the dwelling units with two bedrooms. this contributes to the city's stock of housing suitable for families. all street frontages have active use. and langton will be improved with a new sidewalk. although the project does result in a loss of pdr space, it does provide substantial new housing and new onsite below market rate
units for rent. they recommend approval with conditions as attached. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> hello, my name is peter akeen, we're the project sponsor for the development. we're excited to be here today. we got in queue 2015. we started the process, so we're excited to move it along and hopefully get your consent to get the project built. we've worked closely with the planning department. we've made a number of concessions and changes and tweaks. and a design we are proud of and can put our stamp on. we're going to own the property ourselves as developer tend to be long-term holders. the existing condition of the property is two-story vacant warehouse type building. industrial in nature, or use.
as highlighted previously, we're proposing 50 designed units with 2100 square feet of street level retail. in terms of public benefits, 50 units of those will have affordable housing units, which probably is the key public benefit in addition to the market-rate housing, given the need for housing right now. also the street frontages, both langton and brandon, we spent a lot of time and attention and care with. we think that the facades and the uses of each are complementary and will add to the streetscape within the community. and then lastly, we'll be making significant impact payments in fees to the city of san francisco. within the project and the lpa application, we are seeking two exceptions which cava, the
project architect will be happy to speak to you about. last week, we did host two public neighborhood meetings. i'm happy to report there was little -- no resistance and generally speaking, the neighborhood is supportive of the project and voiced that and that reflects the fact that we've designed a project that fits the fabric of the neighborhood, which we like. that said, we look forward to moving the project forward. the intent, if we were to get an approval would be to break ground within 12 months. and build out the project. so, thank you for your consideration. and we're here to answer any questions as they come up. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. cava massey, architect. i'm a bit of a congested head, so my voice is a little off.
so the building sort of hits the ground very, very friendly and nicely with active uses on the two sort of public sides. the two exceptions that we're asking for are pretty much equal to what the actual by right will provide for us. so i don't think we're bending the rules that severely or to the detriment of the project. it makes the project a better one. we're using substantial material in sort of a neighborhood that used to be all mostly a lot of warehousing type uses. so the use of the brick and the steel that we're proposing
should sort of resonate with what is there. i don't want to take too much more of our time, so if you have questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> thank you. you have one more minute, if you'd like it. >> president melgar: does anyone have public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: thank you, i like this project. i like your material choices on the building and i would move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, if there is nothing further, there is a motion seconded to approve
this matter. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. items 14a and b, for 2018-000547. consider the request for the conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator the request for variance. >> good afternoon. jeff horn, planning department staff. requesting conditional use authorization. the property at 42 ord court is located in the corona heights neighborhood. it's a true lot with 25 feet of frontage on ord court and on state street. 118 feet in depth and access of 20% from the frontage.
the property is developed with a two-story single-family home built in 1921. and a vacant dwelling unit is located on the portion of the ground floor. the existing structure is 1407 square feet. and extends to 59 feet on the lot. project is proposed to construct a vertical and horizontal addition. the existing structure will remain for the most part, but be lifted two feet in height. after a 15-foot setback, two floors will be added to the top at the rear portion of the building. and at the rear of the building, a horizontal addition will be added. it will provide two residential units within 1400 square feet to have habitable space, this will
provide 745 square foot garage. item before you is a request for conditional use authorization, further requirements of the special use district for development that results in floor area in excess of 3,000 gross square feet. expansion of more than 100% increase in gross square footage and increases the count of units on the parcel. they also seek variance from the front setback line requirements from planning code section 132 because of the lift of two feet of the building within that 15-foot required front setback. at the time of the report publication, the department received opposition from four residents, with concerns on the proposal's consistency with the
corona heights sud. the department received supplemental information, which i e-mailed to the commission earlier this week. six additional letters in supports were received from surrounding neighbors, including adjacent owners to the east and the adjacent owner to the west at 255 state street. three letters in opposition were received from residents of ord court. the advisory team reviewed this project and were in support of the proposed massing and size of the project. and eviction history requesting received january 18, resulted in no recorded evictions on the property. the department is recommending approval of the project with conditions. we find the property has developed -- the project as developed and proposed will maximize the density allowed for the rh-2 zoning district and
will not alter the affordability of existing units on the property. this concludes staff presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have a project sponsor? >> thank you, planning commission. john duffy, project architect. as jeff described, there will be two units on the property at completion. a substantial single-family home which we call unit 2 and a good-sized apartment in the lower level at 800 square feet,
which is unit number 1. both units front onto ord court. there was confusion in the past with some of the opposition that we may have been using state street to propose another unit. that is certainly not the case. both will front onto ord court, their addresses will be on ord court. and nothing is being proposed in the rear yard beyond the horizontal expansion. in this graphic, the green is the rear yard. that is full 53 feet, which is 45% rear yard. and the substantial light court for unit number 1. so there is a very substantial rear yard provided. it's not some small little leftover yard. it's a full 53 feet in depth. we would to provide access onto state street for walkability
purposes. that is what the spiral staircase is. it's not to be construed as a separate entry way for another unit. the project is set back 15 feet at the front. so suggestion from rdat, which we incorporated and it helps with the massing of the building, and retaining the fabric of the ord court street. we have some very strong neighborhood support. there are nine letters that we have here. i think jeff may have mentioned six. i could be incorrect, but if the commission would like to see all the letters, i have them here. we have a graphic that shows that as they occur in the neighboring properties. i would like to show... the green being letters of support,
the orange opposition. so as you can see, the immediate neighbors and directly across the street are in support of the project of. the opposition, mostly the neighborhood group, is my understanding, are scattered throughout the neighborhood. we have made some efforts in discussions with them, but it did not come to fruition. there was talk about changing the square footage, possibly removing the fourth floor. nothing came of those discussions. it's just too detailed to work on at this time, so we're proposing the project as it currently stands. and we feel it's the right design for the project. we feel it's the right square footage. and we have -- we feel we have a very good project that is nicely scaled and retains a lot of the character of the original
cottage. i think that concludes my presentation. i know the owners would like to have a few words. and i'm certainly available for answering questions. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. you have a minute left on the presentation, so if the owner wants to say a few words? i don't think so. >> president melgar: that's fine. we will open up the item for public comment. come on up, please. >> may have a moment to adjust the overhead?
good afternoon, commissioners. my name is chris parks, i live at 231 state street. i do not support this project as proposed. i am very grateful to the neighbors who first did a pre-application and invited everyone to come learn about this project. i wanted to point out that even though the plat plan shows a staircase, there are two significant trees that are in the rear yard. this is from state street. there is one on the left and one on the right. i didn't see those mentioned in the application. also they would be removed, the one on the right, in order to provide the staircase. i don't see my timer. oh, here it is. i see. so i just wanted to give you a picture of state street. it's a beautiful street. i've lived there since 2006.
i'm a tenant. i love that street. a lot of folks travel state street as they go to the park, enjoy it, and it's a beautiful street. >> if you look at state street, the reason it is the way it is is because of the zoning requirements. there is alternating pattern of rear yards and homes on the street, because the zoning requirements protect the rear yards from development. and that is why we have the beautiful street we have. you can see a number of properties that front on state street, where the rear yards are there. and that is what provides our canopy and beautiful street. i do not support this zoning variance. it is the zoning that provided
this unique neighborhood. and then when that was being overturned or not followed, then the neighborhood gathered many signatures, many to develop the conditional use controls. those conditional use controls reinforce the protection of thru-lots to protect the rear yards. you can see now as the conditional use applications are coming through, those rear yards are being removed. 88 museum way. 42 ord court is now before you. and the rear of 22 ord court will be developed. so this, without following -- [bell ringing] -- the requirements of the new conditional use -- and i want to just mention -- it mentions very specifically that rear yards may not be developed. and that was at a great effort by the community in order to provide that.
so my request is that you deny the variance, ask this project to be in compliance and bring in protection for the trees. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. hello, my name is bill. i'm on the board of the corporate heights neighbors, and i've lived in the neighborhood for 25 years. i've lived on both sides of the street. above it on museum way, and on lower terrace currently, so i think i know the neighborhood pretty well. i'm sure you've heard -- height
s.u.d. i just want to stress with this, by saying that the interim controls were put in 2015. the permanent controls were put in 2017. and this property in question was bought after the interim controls were passed. so from a homeowner point of view, there should be absolutely no surprises. looking at the proposal in front of you, the proposal is to go from 1800 square feet to 4800 square feet, about 161% increase. that's not including the parking space which i believe should be included. the proposal exceeds the s.u.d. by 62% and there is a four-story tower which is the highest on ord court. currently the highest thing on ord court is two apartment buildings that are three stories. we have made mitigation efforts with the owners. those went from meetings to
e-mails to phone conversations, et cetera, and we could not come to agreement. i just want to be clear that the chn has had numerous discussions in the past with other properties, specifically ord court, ord street and saturn street and we ultimately came to a conclusion. a satisfactory conclusion. just to give you a street view -- pardon my bad photography -- you have to understand that ord court is hardly a street. it's very narrow, dead end and community street. my arrow attempts to show the current peak which is about a story and a half high. the four-story addition will be somewhere in here. i'm not an architect, so i can't tell you exactly, but it's going to be high. looking at it from the top, this is the building in question. so... the discussion of adding a
unit here. let's be clear, there has always been two units -- [bell ringing] -- so there is no change. this is a notice of termination from a previous tenant, so there was someone there before the current owner and they were forced out. here is a picture of the entrance. it's a separate entrance. in conclusion, this is too big, too high, does not add housing, and it should be rejected and not to mention, it completely blows away the s.u. duxt. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on the item? okay, public comment is now closed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm a little concerned about this project, partially because we're talking about unit inequity. if this building -- this
building is to be demolished. it is not a second unit, but it tries to look like an adu. if it was a second unit, we would have concerns with it not having address on the street. it's way back from the property. you're going from the service entrance all the way to the back and then there is a door in the unit itself sits very much in the hole. i consider that to be questionable. and most and foremost, i think it is the inequity in sizes for enlarging the building, where the main unit, the reason for the building, is 3,000 square feet and the second unit is only 800. that is -- well you can do the math. i find it particularly ironic, and it's my own preoccupation with equitable sizes, if the unit is 800 square feet, we're
dedicating 745 square feet for two cars to park. i think that sheds a bigger spotlight on what i would call inequity. i would like for the commission to think about that. we have that discussion in many other remodels of this kind. and i think we're not doing what we normally do when we look at densification. this is not at all densification. it basically only replicates what was there before there was a second unit. and this looks like an adu, but it's called a second unit. >> president melgar: commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: so, i share some of those concerns, but i think a little different on the equity of the unit size here. it starts as a single-family home. i know there is possibly a unit in there, but it's not new construction of rh-2. [please stand by]
and the four story structure would be the tallest on the street, would create a visual wall. we think that is a mistake. >> okay. i think that gets at our attention. if you took the top floor off you basically -- you would lose the unit if you try to accommodate that. >> it is a question of the owners how big they want their place, how much to dedicate to the second unit. it could be a studio. i have seen garages converted into studios. i doubt if that is 800 square feet. they have to decide the emphasis and you have to be the judge. >> thank you. i think that is the building is doing what the special use is preserving the open space on the one side. the question then becomes on the
ward street side is it too big? one of the problems you are setting back 15 feet. i can see lopping off the top floor. you would want to bring that into the setback on the third floor. we want to preserve that set back to give the two story appearance on ord court to preserve the building that is there. there are a couple things that are at odds here that we are trying to accomplish. a decent size second unit which i think you have and trying to accommodate the existing envelope and height of the building. that is why the masses is set back. i think it does what the gentleman from state street asked us to do is keep state street open on one side. one alternative is to build a second unit on the state street
which the zones doesn't like. we can argue from urban planning. the zoning encourages more mass on one side and keep open on state street. i think it does what it is supposed to do in response to zoning. if you lopoff a floor, i get that but i don't know what that does. >> the question two things here. i see on the first floor and crawlspace plan the gentleman showed a door and notice to vacate to a tenant. was there a unit in there? >> there was some kind of an old unit, but a very substandard one. in our city of city codes we find no record. >> it could be an illegal unit. >> if at all.
substandard head height and electrical, you name it. >> when did the tenant vacate? >> that i don't know. i know when the owners took possession of the property, it wasvay can't. >> -- vacant. >> we have a two unit building. substandard or not, go ahead. >> i see it here. it is open storage. >> that is used by renters previously. >> when. >> maybe by nannies today or before, a nanny suite. >> you showed a notice to vacate. what date is on it? >> there is no date on it. the last resident who also lives on the street was in, and she was