tv [untitled] November 7, 2010 11:30am-12:00pm PST
11:30 am
residents nearest the proposed projects who reside on how will hand sacramento st. -- powell and sacramento streets. i also want to read a letter given to me by the union club. on behalf of the board of directors of the pacific union club, please accept this letter as the board pose a position on the planned redevelopment of the proposed redevelopment here they have apprise the club of its plans to redevelop the fairmont hotel. we understand the scope of the project will entail downsizing of the hotel and the development of the remainder of the property to include new residential tower conditions -- conditions. in short, they like it and approve it. -- new residential tower additions. >> thank you for the opportunity
11:31 am
to speak. i'm a resident of 1000 mason st.. i overlooked the tower directly from my apartment where i have lived for seven years. i also served as the volunteer treasurer of grace cathedral and member of the executive trustees. in my volunteer capacity, i was asked to come to you today to speak about grace cathedral close support of the project, which i also support as a neighbor. the cathedral takes the long view. our building is for your years younger, and we are still not finished with it today. we have another 20 or 30 years of work to build to from fleet the cathedral. we understand that the maintenance of aging structures is very expensive, and it requires that the use of the building be such that it receives enough economic support to maintain it. we have that problem that braze
11:32 am
cathedral. we face it every day. you very much support the project across huntington's where from power structure because we take the long view and what the fairmont to be there for another 100 years. clearly, in its current use, it is not going to make it. we support the project. we do not want to have too much dust. we would like to have a tonga room somewhere, but we very much understand the view that the fairmont hotel must be economically viable in order to be there for the next 100 years. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> i live right across from the fairmont hotel, and i have lived there almost 20 years.
11:33 am
in looking at these plans, rather than bringing a folder, i can only say that i have been told looking those over that it calls for 300 new parking spaces, and that will increase the traffic and interfere with each of the occupants who live close or nearby. also, there will be three years when this addition can change to the fairmont will take place, and the question is -- how is that going to affect the residents of this area? that will be a sacrifice of there, so to speak, sanctity and ability to live there. we also know that the fairmont is one of the hotels, and i'm told by one of the big four that
11:34 am
their business is such that they only have one meal a day, and that is a a la carte breakfast. from a strictly pragmatic situation, there is no need for this condition at the cost and expense of the privacy, the reality of just living there. the fairmont is just putting up another tower and the last thing we need in san francisco, since our building is all tourists, is another piece of steel eating the sky. i oppose this because i do not
11:35 am
see that it is doing much for the area for four san francisco. need to preserve the historic arts of san francisco, of which nottinghill is certainly a part. carl would certainly say -- of which nob hill is certainly a part. i would say that this project will not serve any use, but you consider it. thank you, gentlemen. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] m of commissioners, thank you. local hotel workers union. i want to highlight the inadequacy and eir.
11:36 am
the proposed condo's should not be treated like common housing stock. they will be occupied just a small fraction of the year. they will not support the same kind of employment as typical residences would. we raised this during the comment time. the staff responded dismissively, saying that the common does not raise issues regarding the accuracy of this eir. they went on to restate that the demand for employees services by hotel guests would be reduced, but a similar number of police currently providing guest services would be expected to provide similar services to new residents. this defies common sense and it defies our of the -- experience as comparable structures in san francisco. these hotel-branded condominiums
11:37 am
are not designed as primary residences. at the four seasons, less than 1/3 of the condos are registered as primary residences. the number is even fewer at the st. regis, and that is the figure that has been stable since he property opened nine years ago. many of the rest of the residences sit and be a lot of the year. they are owned by people do not come here more than a few weeks out of the year. beyond that, we have looked at the employment out of these four seasons condos. you look at a couple of months recently, the 143 residences at the four seasons generated on average 3.1 hours of housekeeping work for we over this couple of months. by comparison, 143 luxury hotel rooms would generate 457 hours of housekeeping were during that
11:38 am
week, so just by common sense and by the fact eir is flat out wrong on the employment issues, these condos have very different employment patterns from other condos, and by extension, they have very different land use consequences from the people who actually live there, so at this point, among others, i urge you to reject this eir as incomplete and inaccurate. thank you. >> i want to follow up on some comments i made that were rather unkindly handled. till we will of them have to deal with the interface between the cable car in the fairmont. you do not really have good visuals that show how people see this from the cable cars, which
11:39 am
is a land war. the cable cars are in their own land war. it is the intersection, as we all know, of the two systems. -- the cable cars are their own landmark. the visuals of the project are really nonexistent, but more importantly, the construction impact, and this is on page 156 and 157, where, basically, the response is to open a " trust us -- the response is open " trust us -- "trust us." the issue is people get off the cable cars, and they wait for the other cable car there. anyone who knows san francisco knows that people get off of them to take photographs, but often to transfer.
11:40 am
and there is really no discussion of the construction impacts on people waiting on what often is a cold and windy corner for a cable car, even if they are not transferring but are coming from an even. so i look here and i said, what kind of response is this? it is not about trust, it is about people, pedestrians, transit users -- very unique transit users, cable car riders. they are just looking at the moving of goods. they are not looking at the issue of moving of people next to a construction site, and it is rather shocking because i think the impact and the relationship of cable cars during construction is a huge one, and i still do not quite understand all the issues they have set out in terms of the
11:41 am
construction of a cable car lines. the position is that california will be all done before the construction starts, and, of course, there will be no impact on construction of the reconstructed california line. the other thing you heard from one of the previous comment is is the sacramento st. loading issues are huge, and the department as a physician and the eir position is that is ancient history -- the department's position and the eir position. there needs to be a really good analysis because the sacramento st. loathing also serves the hotels uses as well as the residences. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is pamela duffy. the reason i'm so late in turning in my heart is because i
11:42 am
do not ordinarily speak at a certification hearing. i figured this is the city's eir, but there has been such a panoply of commentary that relates to the actual substance of the project that i thought i might take a moment and try to characterize this in a little more leveling sort of way. i think there has been considerable confusion in the testimony so far between the advocates -- adequacy of the document and whether or not people think the project itself is meritorious. the document is extensive. it is rather remarkable. i meant to carry it up here with me, but i have a bad shoulder. the document for what we're dealing with, which is the replacement of an existing tower and whether or not it relates well, and constructively to what is there and what has been there since 1961, is being characterized as some radical new undertaking, and i think the environmental document speaks
11:43 am
very well to what is actually, for whether or not anyone likes the project, whether they think it is a good idea, whether they think it should be bigger, skinnier, different is further down on the calendar, but it is not the subject now. eir analyzes not only the rational alternatives, but the alternatives that are reasonably consistent with the project sponsor's objectives, which are also detail in some length, which is making sure that the hotel can be thoroughly renovated in the way it needs to in order to reflect its great grandeur, and the great things that occurred there. there will be some conversation about what should or should not happen with the conference room, but the point is that the analysis of these things is extensive and thorough. it is adequate, accurate, and objective, and the response to comments, including the most recent supplemental response you received, is very thorough, and near the ignoring them because
11:44 am
you do not like the answers, does not might be in final document -- does not meet the environmental doctorate inadequate. the ceqa analysis of the project is exhausted can extensive. the one thing that might resonate with you be on the that i would like to call your attention to for two quick things -- one is the suggestion that the construction contract of this project have not been adequately in -- analyst in the environments of document. the response to the construction impact of this relatively modest change our kind of phenomenal. there is also a fully grown construction management program and a detailed response to the late submission about construction impacts. the construction impacts of this project are the overwhelmingly responded to, and if you wait before you make judgment until you see presentation of the project, new will see the extraordinary things they have
11:45 am
undertaken in order to respond to potential construction impacts. it is really quite remarkable, including building and interior room. lastly, the suggestion that the project may not in the internment of document -- in the environmental document have analyzed the historic status i did not believe is accurate. the environmental document is beyond question of adequate, accurate, and objective. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> 9 ray brown -- i'm ray brown, and i speak to you as a resident of bronco lake erie we are right across the street from the fairmont. we are going to get all the noise, all the construction dust. i'm here as a very strong
11:46 am
advocate for the fairmont. they have been a wonderful neighbor since we moved here in 2006. i'm going to spare you -- i know you did not have eyes good enough to see this, but this is a picture of my grandson. he is two years old. he literally has his nose pressed against the window with the fairmont has this miniature train running around a track. the holiday season, they go out of their way to make a really warm and wonderful setting. are also speak to you from the bottom of my heart that they have answered all our concerns. they have had multiple meetings with the residents, and i do not know that i can say everyone is in agreement, but we are all strongly in agreement. i know the neighborhoods are not static.
11:47 am
they have lives that go up and down. if the fairmont cannot change to meet the 21st century, it will weaken. the fairmont is like an anchor tenant for nob hill. without it, we do not have a strong nob hill. i am not going to live forever, but i would like to see the fairmont their 100 years from now. please approve the eir. president miguel: stephen gomez followed by others. >> ladies and gentlemen, stephen gomez, a resident of over 30 years. i am also president of the homeowners' association at california street, which represents 91 apartments, approximately 200 individuals. and also on the board of directors at 1177 california
11:48 am
st., which has to wonder 50 apartments and close to 300 residents. -- which has 250 apartments and close to 300 residents. this has been explained to us by folks at the vermont at several occasions. our hoa's realize this is going to be a disruptive event for a number of years, but we think it will advance the quality of life on nob hill. nob hill has become steadily more residential over the past few years, and going to a motel we think will be beneficial. we think the residential presence will also be beneficial to the hill. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephen captain. i have been a resident of non- hill -- nob hill since 1972.
11:49 am
i have lived within a block of the vermont for the last 20 years. we can all agree that the knob hill hotels have experienced that loud sucking sound as guests have increasingly elected to say in south of market hotels. the proposed project addresses these economic realities and helps keep the fairmont and other hotels on nob hill bible. other hotels win with less competition as the fairmont reduces the number of rooms. residents benefit and wind up with more good restaurants to go to. let us be honest. the current fairmont power will never win any architectural beauty awards. in my opinion, this is a very desirable project for nob hill and send francisco. i encourage the approval of the project while using this process to mitigate to the degree
11:50 am
possible the issues being raised. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is callahan frisco. i am here speaking in support of the fairmont project. i was raised across the street at 1000 mason, which with family owns, and see the project as a positive for the neighborhood. my family has been neighbors with the fairmont for 90 years and look forward to seeing the next 90 years with the new improved fairmont hotel. i have heard some talk of the tonga room as a cultural resource. it is about as polynesian as hawaiian pizza. i think businesses should be able to reinvent their own establishments. it is a common practice in the service industry. the tar itself in its present form is at the very least unattractive. the new tower with its new
11:51 am
amenities and residents can only add positively to the neighborhood. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is henry kate landis -- enrique landis. i worked 1000 mason street. we are the single largest neighbor of the fairmont. during the last three years, i have spent countless meetings speaking to the fairmont staff and project sponsors. it is no doubt that the sacramento alley, street, and loading docks have been a problem for a long time. you've heard from some of our residents. i cannot tell you how helpful the turmoil was in addressing our concerns, moving the loading dock inside, and having follow up meetings. i know several of the project sponsors and the manager of the hotel have been the best never we could have had to show us the
11:52 am
new fremont and current paramount were working to be good neighbors and make nob hill a great place to live. many of our residents are on 30-day lease. we took this process very carefully. you have heard from my residence. many of them are in support of this project enough to come speak to you today, including those who have bedroom's right across the street. they take the long view. my average resident spends 14 years in my apartment. they love the neighborhood. they love living on the hill. they see the value of improving the hill. in the last couple of years, it has been hard to open restaurants on nob hill. why? there are not enough people who live there. we need these residents to make this a surviving neighborhood. in the past, it was a residential neighborhood. the last century, it was a hotel never heard. we would like to see the next century go back to the
11:53 am
residential uses that have been so well received in the apartments we manage. there are a lot of things we have heard of short-term thinking of the negative. long term, i do not see anybody who has said that bringing more residents to the street is a neighborhood -- is a negative. the project's sponsors have been great neighbors and we look forward to their new fairmont very soon. president miguel: thank you. >> i am the manager of 225 california street. american samoa building manager, i have heard from many residents on several occasions throughout this project. they are on the whole very supportive of the project and look forward to welcoming more permanent residents to the hill and to nob hill in general. they look forward to the new services the fairmont and this project will bring and i urge
11:54 am
you to support the project and accept the eir. president miguel: thank you. are there additional public comments? if so, please come up. >> greetings, commissioners. my name is christopher pike, a representative of sos tonga. the fairmont management has signed an agreement to reopen the tonga room of sight. it is to be relocated in its entirety and will include all its distinctive features. it will continue to operate as a nightclub, bar, and restaurant. to wrap this process, we have consistently maintained that it should remain on site in the belmont hotel. this is still our official steps. we are on record for endorsing
11:55 am
alternatives b1 and b2, which would retain it on site in the party structure. i still think that with some imagination it could thrive at the fairmont, but clearly my demographic is not what they want up there. the fairmont people are going to get rid of the tonga room, whether we like it or not, if not now the next year. preservationists cannot always let the perfect be the enemy of the good. if there is an alternative to banishing the remains of the tonga room to a warehouse in oakland, we should consider it. the devil is in the details. we should make sure that any attempt to remove it will not damage its features. the process for inventorying the room and its character, as outlined in the mitigation measure in the draft eir, will need to be used. the teachers need to be
11:56 am
reassembled, and the new room must be able to accommodate the entire room in current configuration. any such attempt to move the room needs to be enforceable with conditions in the approval of the project. in conclusion, preservation does not always have to be a battle to the death for everyone loses. if we can work something out, at the fairmont gets their parking and fancy restaurants and we get to keep the tonga room. president miguel: are there additional public comments on this item? please. >> my name is david harrington. i have resided in the nob hill area for over 30 years. i think i have a reasonable -- can i accept these -- submit these 10 copies? i think i have a reasonable
11:57 am
compromise. they have some clear financial needs. they have some clear financial needs as far as losing out to the south market hotels, the fairmont. first of all, look at this. you look at this and we see -- we see what is going over the podium. my argument is not so much with the tower but the podium. this certainly does not do justice to the architecture. it is not compatible with it at all. and then we have something that is done here below. this is a tenderloin building, 201 turk street. this is subsidized housing, a poorer neighborhood building we have here. and then here is 111 jones street. this is a poor neighborhood
11:58 am
building. look how much superior this is aesthetically, the so-called poor neighborhood buildings. [unintelligible] this high rent, expensive neighborhood. what was accomplished in the poor neighborhoods reverses what they are trying to do in the expensive neighborhood. what i propose is -- if they want added units, they want these units they can get for condos. let us then take these hideous additions to the podium, and let us add those to the top of the tower. leaves the podium alone, so it doesn't the face a historical building's architectural
11:59 am
standards. add those to the top of the tower. that runs into a height issue. we have right here the height limit of nob hill is the jones apartment. that has existed for how long? it was built in 1929. i do not know how high the communication tower is. the highest point on nob hill is 704 feet. if this is allowed at the top of nob hill, wouldn't it be a good compromise to take those units they are planning to add to the podium and utterly destroy the architecture -- there is the compatibility whatsoever -- why don't we add them to the top of the tower instead? president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if
77 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on