Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 1, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm PST

5:00 pm
trying to get around the fact that all those other -- supervisor chiu: i believe you spoke already on behalf of the appellant. next speaker? >> good evening. i've been in an around san francisco since the 1980's and i'm here to speak on behalf of project sponsor and applicant. the property 126-128 ord is not adjacent. ord is a flat frontal yan cottage beautifully restored and painted and has a formal front garden. it's significant and based on its historical architectural
5:01 pm
facade with its front garden noted as a feature. several front yards have come into discussion here. they vary in their patterns and styles. there is no formal or intentional relationship between any. there are no physical connections between them. each is separated by the adjoiner that establishes individual character, ownership, and privacy. two are screened from the street by tall fences and gates. patterns are similar only in respect that each has a paved drive and parking area and which is a primary characteristic of the property per exhibit g. the identified significance of 140 ord is due to its historic architecture, specifically its facade. its identified significance has no relationship to or dependence on its context or setting or on the characteristics of any other property, vistas, or views. the project respects the historic front of 140 ord street, including its yard. the alteration of 136 ord will not materially impair the identified historic significance of 140 ord. therefore there is no potential
5:02 pm
adverse change. in fact, the proposed project repeats a pattern of development long since evident at 138 to 140 ord, which is that of an original small cottage at the rear with a subsequent edition of a primary residence to the front. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, speakers. my name is richard carrington. i live at 154 ord, and i've lived there for about 20 years. and i'm in favor of this project because it will greatly enhance the block that i live on. as you walk up the street, you don't see what i've heard described, which almost sounds like you're describing the gardens of versailles. what next to me is bill's house, which does have a beautiful garden and a big fence in front. next to that is the house you've heard is historic, and it's a beautiful house. i think it's the best on the block. and next to that, of course, is
5:03 pm
the lot we're talking about, which has -- i've always hate. it drags weight to the back with the long driveway, a scrubby sort of -- you can't really call it a garden area, and a large fence. next to that is a property with a big palm tree. other than that, it has no great merit. it has a parking space at the front. it has a new structure right behind the parking space, so it's not all in the back of the lot. it has a big space that's occupied by some sort of building, a one-story building right in the middle. and it has a huge fence with a big gnarly vine that looks like it's some alien thing that could grab you from the street. these are not garden blocks. these are not connected in any way. and i favor the construction, and i hope that you will approve the construction of this house proposed. thank you. president chiu: thank you.
5:04 pm
next speaker. >> my name is john hudson, i live at 420 jersey street. i sold my international design company about five years ago. i've been a member of the national trust for historic preservation for decades. i've helped them campaign to preserve buildings and sites around the country, including the city of paris here in san francisco. i know something about historic preservation and the laudable instincts towards it. i've also learned something about how those impulses can run amuck. if i paraphrase a renowned san franciscan, eric hover, the long shoreman philosopher, if i may, a zell lot is someone who having lost sight of his goal redoubles his effort. keen eyes in this room may see some of them here today. but i'm here to say this. i have followed this project since the beginning, since the first discussions of it. i support his right to build his house on his property. i support the concept of the proposed house and side plan.
5:05 pm
i support the design of the house which meets every single requirement of the city. and is a very pleasing and i might say sim pat co addition to that block despite the repeated alterations he has made in the plan hoping to mollify what are basically his unmollifyable critics. in fact, i applaud the fact that it will contribute more housing and more off street parking to the items that i think are on the city's eternal wish list. finally, i want to talk about the process that's brought us here today. i mentioned this to a friend in new york last night. he laughed. he said, it's surreal. i don't think that's funny. i think it's appalling. i hope that the board today will make a first step towards correcting all of this business by denying this appeal and giving back to mr. maroney what should have been his in the first place.
5:06 pm
lastly, i'm so glad the fellow before me corrected the impression that maps -- president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi there. my name is jonathan stewart mills, i'm a resident of 119 ord street. i live on the second floor at 119 ord street, and i have a direct view of all four lots that were mentioned. i came here today to tell you about my neighborhood. and in my neighborhood, if you look at these four lots, you will very quickly determine that they are yards and nothing more or nothing less. they are littered with modern life. the property that is being called a historic resource directly across the street has more paving stones, more concrete, and a gazebo containing a hot tub than it does foliage or plants.
5:07 pm
i took a walk down ord street this morning to make sure that i was going to speak the truth this afternoon. i did not see a single blooming plant. what's being called a formal garden in front of the historic structure, which is in fact a fabulous house, is a trimmed hedge, which is maintained approximately twice a year. i love my neighborhood because as you walk down the street, it is a my ladge of architecture. it is the story of real san franciscans. so i ask you to turn the page today and let another chapter be written and let the house be built on ord street. president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is brian. i'm a resident of district eight in corona heights, so this encompasses my neighborhood as well. i'm in very strong support of projects such as mr. maroney's at 136 ord street that conform
5:08 pm
to city's general plan, that enhances the overall of the neighborhood's value, and therefore enhances the value of property in the city. i think that the strong consideration for any project of this nature should not get held up because enhancement of property value certainly increases our property tax base and i think we ought to realize that that is important for the city in general. i am afraid of any precedent that could be set for projects of this nature and of the size to be sent back to request further ceqa study and environmental impact reviews due to the cost, and frankly, it's just tactics that are being abused by the appellant to delay this project and ultimately not have anything done on this property on behalf of mr. mull row knee. so i thank you. >> my name is jerry. i live at 99 ord street.
5:09 pm
i strongly support this project. i have only met mr. maroney one time, two years ago when he reviewed the project with me and my husband. and we thought it was beautiful. we thought it would be a great addition to our neighborhood. we were surprised by the really vocal and active minority of neighbors who seem to be opposed to the project. and they seem to keep coming up with new reasons to oppose the project. so for over the last two years, we've seen different reasons every few months or every quarter or so. and i can only imagine how expensive delays are for mr. maroney. and he at some point is going to give up, and presumably someone else will buy the house and eventually something is going to be built there, because it's a big ugly empty lot. i think i would rather have his beautiful house than some other house down the road. so i hope you approve the project and deny the appeal. thank you. president chiu: next speaker.
5:10 pm
>> hi, my name is peter wiser, i'm a homeowner at 4168 17th street. i've been there almost six years now. i'm here to support the project at 136 ord street. as frustrating as this process has been, i find it to be an unnecessary expense for probably everybody involved, and frankly, i find it to be an unfair ordeal. john has gone through this project. he has presented, listened to, and followed the advice of the city and others. he has modified and accommodated his plans in accordance with those. i have seen these plans and i admit i am no architect, but they are not only aesthetically pleasing to the eye, but i think that they greatly improve the curb appeal of that neighborhood. so i strongly urge that you consider these comments and to approve this plan. thank you.
5:11 pm
president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am an architectural consultant and have over 41 years of full-time experience in the restoration of over 11,000 historic buildings in san francisco. so i'm very familiar with historic and otherwise. also, i own a five-unit building on ord street and have for 25 years. i'm very familiar with the area. in fact, my first paint color job was on 17th street right around the corner in 1970. i just want to convey my feelings of support for the project, and and i think mr. maroney has done a very beautiful job. i'm looking forward to it. it's a very positive contribution to san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is alan. i'm here to support this
5:12 pm
project. and i hope you will do the same and deny this appeal. thank you. >> members of the board, my name is david hale. i look at 604 newy street. i'm an urban planner, and worked in that profession for 34 years and served as planning director for several jurisdictions surrounding san francisco. in retirement, i'm now a ceramisist. i find that much more stressful. the time of that work as an urban planner here in the bay area, i really appreciated the value that you get from the information gathered through the ceqa process. valuable information that can be used to improve a project.
5:13 pm
but also learned that there are people who abuse the ceqa process by those who want to either delay or defeat a project. and it's my personal opinion that we have an example of that for us here tonight. so i hope that this board comes to that conclusion at the conclusion of this hearing. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is richard miller, i live on the as a rule can stairway about a block from the project. i'm real familiar with it. there's a similar project on the block up the hill on ord street that had a house set way back, it actually fronted on douglas, and the second house was constructed on that one lot, one
5:14 pm
facing ord, one facing douglas. i think this is a similar situation. i also renovate and redevelop residential housing in san francisco. and i'm familiar with the strong feelings that people have about their neighborhoods. but i feel that the interesting texture of old buildings and new together are a great enhancement to our city. so i hope you'll deny the appeal. thank you. >> hello. my name is duncan wheeler. i live at 86 ord. i wanted to come up here and say that i've seen all of the concessions in the original plans. i fully support john's goal to build his house. i think it's really important to live in a city that allows for a mix of new and old architecture. i don't think they always need
5:15 pm
to say -- i think there's a lot to be said for having sort of mixture that really adds beauty to the neighborhood, and i think his structure that he has proposed would definitely do that, so i fully support him. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is steven barber. i live in district eight as well. i've had the pleasure of witnessing john go through this process for the last two years, which has definitely made me have the decision to never try to build a house in san francisco. the only reason we're here today is because a disgruntled neighbor kept getting the wrong answer, so i hope you will deny this appeal so we don't have to go through this again. thank you. >> good afternoon, members of the board. my name is teresa bowmont. i'm an attorney with google inc. i support mr. maroney's project. one, he's been incredibly patient through the process, he's been cooperative.
5:16 pm
he's been collaborative with the neighbors, and he's made a lot of changes already. i understand that they don't want to change the front of his yard at this point, but that's just something not realistic. two quick points in addition to seconding many of the speakers' comments already. one, again, the planning commission already conducted the historical study and it's sufficient that they don't do it again and that's what we want our planners doing, creating efficiencies around their work. and second, this is an abuse of the appellant appeal process, or appeal tactic by the appellants and i would ask that it not be allowed. thank you. >> ♪ here comes the night and i hope you fix up ord street right here comes the night won't you fix up
5:17 pm
ord street right and i hope you don't mind if you don't fix it up this time fix up ord street now fix it up and here comes the night won't you fix up ord street right ♪ president chiu: next speaker. >> i'm not going to sing. shelly bradford belle, formerly on the planning commission back in 2002 when every ceqa case we had was appealed to the body, and you spent hours here. as a commission, we worked to make sure this was a process that was streamlined, so all you got to see here were the cases that really needed your attention. frivolous cases, we did everything we could to make sure they weren't in front of you. this is an administrative issue, just like a building permit.
5:18 pm
if a building is approveed before planning and there are changes that must be done by staff, those changes aren't brought back to the commission. those changes are done, unless it makes a significant change to the project. what happened with this categorical exemmingts has not made any change at all in the ceqa determination for the project. instead what we have is a very well designed project because john is my friend, and i worked with him on it. he has a project that really supports the neighborhood. he has a project that he moved back to make sure that there was still some open space of his private property. he also talked to all the neighbors, he did all of the community meetings and the mediation, because he knew that that was the right thing to do. what we come down here now to is something that the city attorney has told you is a clerical change, that is a typical clerical change. so i hope that you will look at
5:19 pm
that, see that the planning department staff, who i fully support, i know there have been comments about them here, but we have one of the best planning departments in california. and i want to make sure that they're all the supported. they've done their job. this is administrative. so i hope that you will see that you should not accept this appeal. thank you so much. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the real party in interest? seeing none at this time, why don't i ask the appellant to come back for a rebuttal of up to three minutes. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the board. it's hard to do a rebuttal when we haven't heard anything on the merits of our actual appeal. again, what we saw was propped up a lot of straw arguments. we're not claiming the gardens are some historic landmark, pristine that can't ever be built on. we're not claiming that the
5:20 pm
neighborhood is a historic district. we're not claiming that 136 offered street is a historic resource, which is all you heard. we don't dispute the ability to alter the mistake. they should have told us. that hasn't been mentioned. having the city attorney stand up and say that they could change it, we agree with that. the point is, is that if you'd look at exhibit 2 and exhibit 3, the analysis doesn't match because the analysis was never done. and the insulting comments that this is somehow frivolous and an abuse of the process, what a bunch of bull. you know what? i didn't represent these parties at planning, but they came to me and shea showed me an environmental review that had wrong project description, it even had the wrong address. for god's sakes, when will an appeal have merit if every single aspect of the categorical
5:21 pm
exemption is incorrect and there's absolutely nothing in the record to show that the proper analysis was done. there's still is nothing in the record. mr. gladstone stood up here and completely misrepresented. the environmental analysis taken to the planning commission called this an alteration of an existing structure, period. i printed it verbatim in my brief. this was not a clerical error. this was not something that the department said, oh, oops, we made a mistake. if we hadn't filed the appeal, what would have been approved is a project which was reviewed as an alteration of the cottage. because that's all that's there. that's the only environmental analysis that's in this record. so it's as if they didn't even hear the presentation of the appeal. it's nice that they can show up with lots of people who didn't
5:22 pm
once address the merits of the appeal. just talked about how great it is to have this project. but the merits of the appeal are that this particular project was not reviewed. as a result of that, the adjacent resources which ceqa requires to be reviewed were never reviewed. that's clear. and ceqa requires that. it's in the forms that the department has. and to protect those adjacent resources, it doesn't have to be a historic district. and it doesn't have to be historic resource itself. it's adjacent and nearby resources. that review has never been done. this appeal should be granted. president chiu: colleagues, any final questions to any of the parties that were involved in today's hearing? at this time, this hearing has been held and is now closed. items 48-50 are in the hands of the board.
5:23 pm
supervisor weiner? supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank all of the neighbors who took the time to come out here today. i know that it's very difficult when we hold meetings in the middle of the day for people to take time out of their schedule and out of their work schedule to come and sit through everything that we sit through here and spend that time, and so i appreciate it, and i think that it shows that no matter which side people are on, there are an awful lot of people in this neighborhood, which is my neighborhood, i live three blocks from this project, who care deeply about our neighborhood. this is my first ceqa appeal as the district eight supervisor, and so as luck would have it, it is so close to where i live, and i know many of the involved
5:24 pm
people on both sides. in a sense, that makes it easier that people i know are going to be mad at me no matter what position i take, and it makes it that much easier just to do this purely on the merits. i want to stress what this appeal is and what it's not. this is not a discretionary review appeal. that's already happened. and things like light, air, and view were considered. the setback was increased. this is not an appeal to consider my or our aesthetic views. this is a ceqa appeal. it's limited to the narrow issues of whether this property is an historic resource and whether the development will have a significant impact on other historic resources. in my view, the planning department correctly issued a categorical exemption from environmental review. while the process was not 100%
5:25 pm
perfect, it was well within the law. and while reasonable minds perhaps can differ on the aesthetics of the project, this is not a ceqa issue. 1/3 of this property is not a historic resource. i think that's undisputed. and the proposed project does not have a significant impact on other historic resources. i won't repeat the analysis of the planning department. i want to compliment ms. ham for that analysis. and i find the analysis by the planning department to be sound. regarding the lack of a pattern of setbacks that could be considered historic, the lack of consistency among the setbacks, the lack of consistency in terms of architecture among the homes on the blocks, the number of houses on the street without setbacks, etc. i do want to address the procedural issues raised by the appellants. it's, of course, important for
5:26 pm
people to have confidence in our planning process, because our planning process has significant impacts on people's lives. it impacts people who own property. it impacts people who own property adjacent to that property. the process here was not 100% perfect. in an ideal world, yes, there would be notification sent when a category was changed. but none of the issues that have been pointed out are even significantly close. frankly, with all due respect to council, it was blown out of proportion and a lot of accusations and allegations or insinuations of impropriety were made that i think were unfortunate. but more importantly, moving
5:27 pm
past the process issues, in my view, this is not an historic resource and doesn't significantly impact a historic resource. the planning department has provided a full and exhaustive and per -- persuasive analysis, and so i respectfully disagree with the appellant's counsel about no analysis ever having been performed. the fact is that this board has before it an exhaustive analysis of every conceivable historic preservation issue related to this project by the planning department, by counsel for the appellants, by the architect for the appellant, and by counsel for the project sponsor. no one, absolutely no one was deprived of an opportunity to argue their views on this historic preservation issue, either in writing or before the board today.
5:28 pm
we received a full analysis from all sides. the issue is ripe for decision, and we should decide it today. according toly, mr. president, i move item 48 and i move to table items 49 and 50. president chiu: colleagues, supervisor weiner has proposed that we affirm the planning department's decision. is there a second to his motion? seconded by supervisor campos. roll call vote on the motion. >> [roll call] >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the motion is approved. if we can now go to general public comments.
5:29 pm
>> the next item on the agenda is the opportunity for the public to address the board for two minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board, including items on the adoption without committee reference. a portion of the agenda yet excluding items which have already been considered by a board committee. speakers using translation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify. if a member of the public would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector, please clearly state such and remove the document when the screen should return to live coverage of the meeting. >> i'd like the projector to show the document i have placed under the projection. as you can see here, we have a picture of a cultural terrorist. this is osama bin leyland. as you know here in san francisco, we have been going through what has been described as