tv [untitled] September 18, 2011 1:00am-1:30am PDT
1:00 am
of life of every single neighborhood in this city. i am putting $25,000 up to date to start the initiative process. the system has broken down. this is an abuse of the process of neighbors' rights. there is no communication with them. they have to go to the expense of going before the board of appeals. there is not time in the world to go through that. >> -- president olague: are there more speaker cards? we have a few more. can i call a couple more people up? don brown, danya desling, paul hastings.
1:01 am
>> i am the president of the resident council. i am in regard to the property on 15th street. we are a housing project directly across from the building in question. this is a layout -- president olague: it is upside down. >> this is a layout of our property. which encompass a little over 5 acres. within that, there are a little over to under 60 units. it probably includes the same people this project is intended to serve. we understand the need for a project similar to this. our air rage -- our outrage is that nobody in the neighborhood was notified of the plans that were coming to this.
1:02 am
to get to where we are today took nearly a decade of paperwork and shuffling through all of the boards and requirements of the city. one person can take one building and slide it through within a year and start remodeling, doubling the occupancy? it is offensive for myself and the 750 residents i represent. i am on the resident council. i am just emotional. we would not be able to stay where we are today. we have worked five years to maintain our security of our property. we are proud of what we have done. the opportunity to be taken
1:03 am
away -- president olague: thank you. >> we would prefer to rescind this permit. president olague: that is fine. everybody gets two minutes. there are three minutes left. you can take the last. >> my name is dayna desmond. i am requesting this permit be immediately rescinded. this project sponsor, in his letter of determination, stated specifically that information that is not true, the previous association that context of the building -- he indicated they evaded -- they vacated in 2008. in fact, they vacated in 1998. this simply is not true. i do not understand why there
1:04 am
was no public notification for planning code section 312. the sponsor intends to at least double and possibly quadruple the density from its previous 27 rooms to 52 rooms, allowing two occupants per room. that increases it to 154 people living in this space. the previous purpose was to house of monks. that is different from parolee's transferring back into society -- for -- this is different from parolees transferring back into society. i do not understand when a review was done prior to issuing the building permit. this is a potential historic resources in the intermission north historic survey. -- historic resources in the
1:05 am
intermission -- historic resources in the inner mission in north historic survey. the planning department helped to expedite the permit by giving it an environmental quality act exemption. this should not be subject to a ceqa exemption. this permit needs to be rescinded. president olague: thank you. i think at some point we should have been meeting with the neighbors to talk more in depth, and eventually i think this is something that has been brought to my attention in other instances it recently -- instances recently, because of the use of programmatic uses for these kinds of buildings. scott sanchez: the permit is
1:06 am
appealed to the board of appeals and will be heard next week. even if the project was not code compliant, we could not rescind the permit at this date because it is under the jurisdiction of the board of appeals. we do believe the project is code complying. section 312 does not require neighborhood noticed for group housing. there is an interpretation that applies to dwelling units, not housing units. these are distinct categories. this is in the valencia, part of eastern neighborhoods. it does not have density limitations on group housing. it is principally permited on all levels. we believe the project is complying. that is not to say there are not code issues -- there are not planning issues here. they could be looked at by this commission. president olague: even the density limitations might be
1:07 am
something we would consider looking at. scott sanchez: it could be a conditional use, are principally permited, or staff the are -- dr -- there are various ways you could look at it. commissioner antonini: information i would like to have at the very least -- a hearing to discuss not just this project, but the overall concept regarding notification, density, and change of type of use for the inhabitants in the future. president olague: we can definitely invite project sponsors, people who run these types of homes, to give us an insight into how these programs are set up and that sort of thing. commissioner sugaya: if we are going to embark on a broader discussion, i would like to have some information on the number of group housing units in the city, where they are located,
1:08 am
and for what kind of purposes. i do not know the right term. halfway houses or places people go, versus youth group homes or other things. president olague: sometimes, it is such a complicated issue. when it comes to women who are in domestic violence situations, there are issues around confidentiality. it is a very complicated thing. we should definitely have a hearing, probably sooner than later. commissioner sugaya: i was particularly interested in location, because i suspect they're all in my neighborhood. [laughter] president olague: the transitional use housing was something that was a huge issue recently. commissioner sugaya: i am not speaking of that as a negative.
1:09 am
president olague: that is right. it can work, and has been known to be compatible with those areas. but it is a huge issue that we have to get ahead of a little bit. we will have to discuss it here. and i have worked with ms. wilson for years. i know she is not a stereotype of a "not in my backyard" sort of person. this is an issue we have to talk about in a humane way, instead of a judgmental, pejorative way. >> commissioners, we now go to your regular calendar. i am sure that will take into account your desire to schedule a hearing on the broader subject in the future. president olague: we will have to. >> from your consent calendar,
1:10 am
you have two items that relate to wireless facilities. president olague: we are going to hear the non-wireless first, and then we will group all the wireless together. >> we are going back to item four, a and b, 4527-529 stephenson st. -- for 527-529 stevenson street. >> this is a request to convert a four story industrial building to mixed use, with 67 residential units, eight off- street parking spaces, and a small ground floor commercial
1:11 am
space. the project needs an exception for a rear yard, and a variance for dwelling unit exposure. the project provides new housing in a mid-market area, and provides an alternative to residential hotels. the small commercial unit could sell -- could provide services to residents of the project, and business opportunities for local entrepreneurs and area residents. the project will provide 10 at new affordable dwelling units on site. the department has not received any, from the public regarding the site. we request approval. the project provides 67 new dwelling units, including 10 affordable units, a new commercial space, meets all requirements of the planning code except the dwelling unit exposure requirement for which the variance is requested, and advances the policies of the
1:12 am
general plan. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners. we think this project would be a valuable -- >> do you want to state your name for the record? >> david silberman, on behalf of the sponsor. we think this will be a valuable addition to the mid market area, which has been a subject of intense focus for the last 10 years or so. it has gone through many iterations of plans for redevelopment, and so forth. with the recent announcement of the twitter headquarters being relocated theire, and the tax abatement district, there has been renewed interest in this area. all of this activity is within
1:13 am
just a couple of blocks of the project site. this is a through lot. it goes through to jesse street. it is about a block away from me -- from the soma grand. it is on an alleyway. this would be an ideal location for workforce housing. it is in walking and biking distance to both the civic center and the financial district, the main employment centers in the city. people living in this building will not contribute to any car traffic. they're going to be able to walk, bike, or take public transit. they are a block away from bart and all the new alliance-- the muni lines. there has been no opposition at
1:14 am
all, which is always a good thing. we are glad the neighbors are happy with it. finally, i have made a lot of trips to the project site since we filed the application. that was almost a year ago. every time i have been there, the total area has been deserted, except for homeless people, and drug people. it is not a good area right now. but it is on the verge of a renaissance. we need more projects like this. my clients, mr. wong, is a
1:15 am
pioneer. we hope there will be many more products to follow, so we can revitalize mid-market. this is now one of the main areas of the city that needs to be upgraded and developed and revitalized. we hope you will approve this project. we think it will be a great addition to improve neighborhood safety by bringing people to the area. it will reduce crime and contribute to the revitalization of the mid-market area. thank you. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i ask for this project, for the following reasons. i believe this project tries to abuse the goodwill of this commission. it is a good opportunity, but it
1:16 am
fails to address a number of issues. adaptive reuse of industrial buildings in that area and other parts of the city present one of the largest opportunities for the city to reasonably densify, with acceptable dwelling units, acceptable standards for mixed use, including revitalizing the public realm, improving transportation, and helping us with a number of policy issues. this project bills on a number of issues. this should not have been on the consent calendar. it should have been discussed for us to reflect on what is missing. i would like to remind the commission of last week. we had two projects which stood in stark contrast to each other. they did not describe what the situation was.
1:17 am
commissioner antonini got involved to help us understand the issue of this project. this project fails to do this. this project does not address the real materiality and transformation of the area in a larger discussion. it just says we are doing good, converting industrial to housing, and adding affordable housing. but it suggests sub-standard dwelling units, which start at 200 square feet. that is not sufficient to suggest the standard, and once more toward met -- and points more toward making a quick buck. we can provide co-compliant
1:18 am
buildings which provide the right exposure. 60% of the units do not have proper exposure, but try to rely on an inner courtyard. we have seen in a number of examples in this area other architects have tried to use buildings in a manner that produced no were the buildings, including historic preservation buildings. would you mind not speaking? i am speaking. onward. we have really very good examples of buildings on similarly large lots, adaptive reuse buildings, which have done very well. however, they do not put a people factor in. i am going to use a word which was not used at all in your presentation.
1:19 am
the architectural transformations of the building are basically non-recognizable. the building, when it is finished, on the outside will not be much different than what it is now. it is basically a building with too many people in it, 20 pounds in a 5 pound bag. i am very upset the project was brought forward in the manner it is. it lacks the proper discussion and representation. thirdly, the recommendations by staff are contradictory on their own. they make a point and the recession. i am very unhappy with what is in front -- they make a point and they rescind. i am very unhappy with what is in front of us. commissioner antonini: i agree that projects like this probably should be on our regular contract -- regular calendar. i think this is a good project. however, it gives us the ability to look a bit and say is this
1:20 am
the best use. should it have been larger units? i am fine with it. i think it serves a purpose. should it be geared for ownership? is it realistic to expect that while you are only providing eight parking spaces of force 67 units, just because there are small -- eight parking spaces of 467 units, just because they are small -- i am in favor of this project, but i would like to see it affected a little more thoroughly-- vetted a little more thoroughly before the commission, and have a little more lead time to consider the whole thing, rather than it being on consent. vice president miguel: i am also in agreement that this should not have been on consent. to me, it is warehousing, just
1:21 am
as much as size of units and that type of thing as the comments we just had on another building. i do not believe that it is one of the intense -- intents to pull that area up from what it is now, that the greening of the exterior of the building does that. it maintains it just as it is. it's still reads like a warehouse to me. it does not read residential. it does not improve the neighborhood to the extent we are getting in the comments from the project sponsor. i have no problem with the limitations on parking, or any of that. i took a look at the plans and was thrown by the 250 sq. ft.
1:22 am
per dwelling unit. we have run into this situation all along. basically, you are looking at something like an sro here, as far as units are concerned. but the bathrooms are bought downhaul -- are not down the hall. i am not satisfied with this. i am certainly not satisfied with it being on consent. commissioner moore: i would like to further comment on the ground floor used being described as a commercial opportunity. i do not believe 210 square feet constitute a space for economic and commercial opportunity. that is basically not even a garage space. i think the reasoning with this project is very weak. i do believe the department needs to develop prototypes and guidelines. the project is asking for as
1:23 am
many units to be determined for compliance -- i cannot do that. that opens a pandora's box. 250 square feet -- >> [inaudible] >> 250 square feet is not the type of unit we should be bringing to the market. i believe, particularly when it comes to accommodating twitter people, they will want more than 250 square feet, unless they just want a bed to sleep in and a country home over the weekend. i am not prepared to do that. commissioner sugaya: excuse me. i am reluctant to impose what we think are our own concepts of
1:24 am
square footage is and things on populations that think quite differently than us. i do not think we have any idea what the young people that work at twitter and other places like that are seeking, or can even put up with. in my own office, we have leased space to a dotcom company. it is completely populated with people that are, i would say, under 25. they are perfectly content. they wear jeans. but i cannot figure out what they do on their computers. but it would seem to me that given certain articles i have seen in the paper, the mind set are not the same as ours. i am willing to maybe take a chance.
1:25 am
i don't know. if people want to continue it and have a better conversation about it, that is ok with me. but i think square footage -- there have been at least two or 3 youtube videos, one by an architect in hong kong uses movable walls in a space less than 200 square feet, another by a young guy in york who lives in 67 square feet. it is astounding, but he is able to do it. i am not saying that is the ideal thing and we should be promoting it, but there are creative ways people are using smaller spaces. there is even a proposal in japantown to may be opened up a love hotel. i put you on morning for that one, director.
1:26 am
-- i put you on warning for that one, director. i do not know what a continuance will get us. commissioner antonini: mr. silberman, do you want to comment? >> thank you for allowing me to comment. i appreciate commissioner subaya' -- sugaya's comments on different populations being comfortable with different sizes of housing. the problem in san francisco for the last 30 years has been affordable housing. it is an issue that constantly is addressed in public forums and so forth, and in the mayor's office, with the board of supervisors. everybody is looking for more affordable housing. there are two factors that go into creating affordable
1:27 am
housing. one is the size of the unit. two is the location. this is a good location for affordable housing, because it has been so undeveloped. san francisco is a big city with a lot of people, different kinds of people with different needs. if there are young people looking for affordable housing who are comfortable in 250 square feet, there should be housing provided for them. we should provide a broad spectrum of housing from large to small, to provide a broader price range. if you really want to provide affordable housing, something has to give. one of the things that has to give is the size. you cannot provide 1000 square feet at an affordable price. i think if we want to take a serious stab at addressing the affordable housing problem, let us not jump to the conclusion
1:28 am
that a 24 or 25-year-old is not going to be willing to live in a 250 sq. ft. unit. many would appreciate this opportunity, rather than having to commute into twitter or any other business from outside the city or the east bay. this is a huge market, here. a lot of people want to live in the city. vice president miguel: i appreciate your remarks. i am going to propose a continuance for three weeks or month, whatever time, but not so much for a redesign or reduction of units. but i think there were concerns with the rendering of what the exterior modifications are going to be to make the building appear a little bit more residential in nature.
1:29 am
i am not saying it has to be drastic. but i did not really see anything in what i saw that indicated any changes that were going to be made, or how those were going to be made. that would be what i would move, if we could come up with a date. >> first of all, i appreciate your comments. when we get them, it helps us -- drake gardiner, project coordinator. i have been here so many times, i thought you might know me. it is basically a warehouse. it has steel windows and an old concrete facade. it has been painted. we are changing out all the windows. we are refinishing the facade. we're putting awnings over all the windows. we are painting it.
212 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on