Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 13, 2013 2:00pm-2:31pm PDT

2:00 pm
district only just for this year the deadline would be october first so if property owners choose can participate this year and then they will synchronize starting with may first deadline. >> i had a quick question because i haven't had a neighborhood in my district go through this process yet. you said there is about 32 participation with the actual vote? i was just wondering if that was the typical turnout. >> it's the first time we've ever conducted a poll. many buildings have multiple property owners so it's hard to say exactly what the percentage would be. we said roughly 35 percent. >> so it could be that one property owner might own several properties. the total of property owners. >> correct. we were looking at
2:01 pm
the property owners in terms of percentages. it was in terms of property owners including multiple units. >> just to add to that we did actually mail to tenants as well but only 4 responded. i think they were split. some support it and some were not. thank you. any comments or questions? anything else from planning? >> we'll open it up to public comment. public comment will be two minutes. when you have 30 seconds left you will hear a soft bell and when you hear a louder bell your two minutes has expired and you should wrap up. i will call a batch of names at a time. you do not have to testify in the order that i call you. you can just come up and lineup to my right on the side of the room. so
2:02 pm
we'll start with don cham bre, dennis lane, summerville, amy hock man, motley, john jones, brian nan, mr. cham bre? >> thank you supervisors. i just want to voice my strong opposition to the proposal but i want to ensure that you understand that i am opposed to it as it is currently written and presented by the city. not opposed to being ever a historic district, but under
2:03 pm
the current terms of this proposal, the burden lies completely with property owners. there is absolutely no paicutio by thecity to enure that the beauty, integrity of a district like this issen insured for the future. i believe this should be a shared responsibility. so i stand in strong opposition to the proposal as it is currently presented. thank you. >> thank you. mr. cham bre. >> good afternoon, dennis lane. i live at 75 piers and i'm here to voice my opposition. thank you. >> hi. amy hock man. i'm here
2:04 pm
to voice my support for the district. i do think that we need to save and preserve our history and i think a lot of the reason that dta started this process with what's going on in market street with those 8 story buildings going up. i think we need to pause and think about preserving this section of san francisco. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jason, i'm in the proposed district raising three kids there and i have started, owned and operated multiple high tech companies in san francisco. over last month a group of us contacted every property owner to find out what level of support there was. we have the following list of 37 property owners. we find the
2:05 pm
proposal redundant and -- ceqa has already established proposed. i would like to submit this list of 37 owners. so of the 106 properties in the neighborhood. 59 property owners responded representing 56 percent of the total owners. this took months, by the way. we e-mailed, we stopped people on the street and knocked on doors and september -- sent actual mail and we found 53 percent are opposed, 22 percent in favor and the remainder are
2:06 pm
neutral. why did we do this? we thought the outreach meetings were great but we didn't actually collect real data. we found real issues where 63 percent of the neighborhood didn't get the mailing and there is a minority representation of 32 percent. so it didn't actually light a fire for people to participate. so, just to wrap up, we urge you to vote against this proposal. >> my name is john jones. i have lived in in district for 30 years. for the life of me i don't understand what is so significant about this district. all of the district and most of san francisco is a
2:07 pm
historic and you can landmark almost any place you visit. we don't need another layer of bureaucracy to get revisions to our property or maintain our property. to buy a house in this district cost you a minimum of a million dollars. no one is going to put a limit of shingles and take down redwood and depreciate their properties. it's unnecessary that we have a fear that we are going to damage the homes by remodeling them. the planning department has the authority right now to over see the remodel of the victorians in a significant way. so we can't really change our viians. distr
2:08 pm
unnecessary and a burden on the property owners and as the manager said we are opposed to ratio 3-1. thank you. >> my name is summerville. i support this to our district. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is brian o'neal and i have concerned in particular about the effect on the hospital california pacific. now i notice on page 5 that this was originally called a hospital lot and i don't know the history behind this, but if the hospital will gain in anyway through the building of the new hospital and then the
2:09 pm
change of the property value here, i am definitely opposed to this. i was recently jailed after supervisor wiener's policy on nudity and kept in jail for 8 months. supervisor wiener is more concerned with covering our fannies. i also noticed that lieutenant governor news son with bradley manning also u.s. army supporting the inclusion of manning in the pride
2:10 pm
marshall. i am right now spent almost entire day california pacific trying to get medical support since i have been convicted of child molestation and i have been followed. these are the effect of your legislation and i suggest that also california pacific should not benefit from this. they do the least amount of charitable work in the city and i have not been able to get proper medical care from them. thank you. >> next speaker. before we get to the next speaker let me call a few more cards. meg heart, peter straus, dennis richards. go ahead. thank for your
2:11 pm
patience. >> i have lived with my husband in this district since 1977 and we support the resolution. >> i have a degree in architectural. neighborhoods like this are very very rare. they come to us through very bizarre circumstances. this area was not developed when the rest of the city was and it was developed in a matter of a few years with very good architects with very good architecture and later architecture went into a
2:12 pm
decline. we then have the added bonus of having a huge amount of economic uptake in the neighborhood where people care about the neighborhood and are trying to do what they can to these buildings. to speak to some of the comments that everyone loves this neighborhood and no one is not doing anything wrong to it. 1975, they did an addition to it and green marble in the haw -- hallway. you have a horrible mismatch. is it appropriate to the neighborhood? no. in opposition we had a house finished, lovely couple and did an amazing job and carried a house that was beautiful that
2:13 pm
fits in as if it was there on the block. we have still 6 houses that are clad in stucco. it is our job as stewards of these buildings, not as mere owners to look beyond our financial and investment opportunities to be stripped of these buildings to make sure the neighborhood is here. >> hello. i'm meg heart. we are delighted to be part of this neighborhood. i echo what mr. win gart has said and also the city has really listened to what we have said and that is an issue but it's separate from what we are trying to do here. this is about presents evasion and being mindful of that. i'm
2:14 pm
here in support of historic preservation. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i represent the district. i want to express my opposition of this area as a landmark district. what i would like to ask is maybe there be a vote allowed by the property owners of the area. i feel that 35 percent is a very low percentage to make a determination that we have to support this. so i would like to have a vote of the property owners to make that determination. thank you.
2:15 pm
>> good afternoon supervisors. i live in this district. a survey showed that not only do we have a beautiful set of homes in our neighborhood but this is the largest in tact grouping of architecturally significant buildings in anywhere in san francisco. that is 6 blocks to the north and the 2 blocks that become part of this district. i think it comes down to two issues. the first is whether does this deserve to be an historic district with respect to the necessity. when we look out of our windows we are aware of the care that many people have
2:16 pm
taken of their homes and at the same time we look at our windows and see things that have been done in the past to abuse the architectural characters within our homes with inappropriate modifications and additions. we are aware that necessary years that property in the city has been more dead than alive. anything we can do to preserve character of the district is necessary. the other issue comes down to whether people are being treated fairly. i think it's surprising to me that as many people oppose this as do but i think this staff deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the process. i think this is what is being asked of you today whether this has been set in place and sets a fair and equitable process, with the mills act provision and the
2:17 pm
permit -- >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm somewhat on the fence. i would be more supportive if the district made an investment to the district. we have wires on the streets. i believe there should be a cove -- cohesive look to the neighborhood. as a board member i was very adamant that there should be a survey made up of the proposed district. that it should not be
2:18 pm
something forced upon them but made to have happened to them. with all respect to my neighbors, there was a survey made and just because you don't like the results of the outcome doesn't mean you get a redo. i think the planning department did stand for itself. i understa concerns of people who live near the park as always having to be concerned on what goes on on the back of the buildings. maybe there could be some compromise made about that. and that's it. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. we are here today to talk about preserving the unique character of the neighborhood not only for the people who live there, for the san francisco who
2:19 pm
enjoys it. i think everyone there xhendz -- commends the property owners there. now it's about preservation. now is the time to make sure we ensure that for the future. this process by the planning department has been balanced and tailored to the residents. people talk about the lengthy process and this is going to be a process to permits. this is the epitome of a lengthy process to make sure that residents get what they need.
2:20 pm
the community has asked for information on this process and it's all been very clear. we see a large amount of building going on in the upper market corridor, that is the new urban san francisco. what we are talking about today is the historical preservation of a district that helps to create that fabric and character of san francisco that combines the old and the new. thank you. >> my name is lynn. i have lived in the district for 12 years. i support the creation of the district. ever since i moved to carmelita street. i
2:21 pm
decision is to support this. thanks. >> thank you. mr. richards? >> supervisors thank you. i was involved in the market october -- orange county let's put this in context. these properties were a part of the market octavia plan. they were off zone. that means that there was a value out to these
2:22 pm
properties and they encouraged the development. unfortunately in the planning process and rezoning process the terms were not in the zoning when it happened in 2008. that's unfortunate because this is a last piece of the process today. i want to acknowledge the home owners here. the properties have been amazingly well kept aside from the one on patoma street. 90 percent of them have a high level of integrity. none of us disagree that it's a special district. we disagree in what i say to ensure it for the future t landmark provides clear and transparent and very minimal guidelines. i think unfortunately for the property owners if they continue to manage the process themselves, they are not going to be around
2:23 pm
in 50 years. that's what this landmark legislation is supposed to do. i think this is best way to ensure the continuity of the properties for the future. i think that off zoning other neighborhoods such as richmond, i beg to differ, ceqa didn't protect those. we strongly support this landmark district. >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors. it's disappointing no that a group is in opposition at the last minute.
2:24 pm
the need for this district with all do respect to the residents of the district, it's not just about them. the proposed district will benefit all san francisco city and all of californians. an we want to provide this unique piece of history. despite the fact that you might late -- so in the absence of eternal life we can't guarantee that future owners will have the respect and love for the historical value of these properties as has been shown. this is only way to ensure that a hundred
2:25 pm
years from now the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to enjoy this special piece history. please support landmark district. thank you. >> hi. i really don't like to speak at these meetings. i bought my house in 1978. i was a sweet young thing from utah. i bought my house because i loved it. when i bought my house we started the first incarnation of friends to both park and that was about safety, it was not about posey and dog poop. we fought very hard to make our neighborhood beautiful. the reason my neighborhood is as beautiful as it is is because i love my home
2:26 pm
and my neighborhood. i feel the laws put in place are read dundant. we don't need somebody watching us. my daughter will inherit the house. while i may not live in it for that many years, she's going to get it. i'm against this. i think this process was not fair. i pointed it out when the survey was put forward and i thought this was a very short timeline and didn't this i people would be able to respond to it because it was right before the holidays and it was true. people didn't get it. there was a lot of members of the community that did not get it. in all due respect to some of the comments we didn't know about it. that's why we did our survey. the people who are affected by this ar the burden
2:27 pm
against it as jason pointed out. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors. since the district was added to the department landmark program in 2011 the city has led a community effort in a scaled back ordinance. this process has the older review standards that allow un
2:28 pm
-- paralleled ordinance. in addition they worked with the planning department to craft legislation to ease taxes under the city mills act program for historic home owners and throughout the city. they kwa you have for property tax instruction for improving their historic homes. after this lengthy process, the proposed district is -- heritage strongly recommends you to develop this marked district to ensure preservation. thank you.
2:29 pm
>> i'm here to represent the consortium. we strongly support this. it doesn't happen on its own. in other words citizens have to work with the city to be able to preserve our beautiful neighborhood and historic preservation. i'm delighted with the amount of work that the planning department has put into this. by soliciting input, it's remarkable that the amount of time that the leaders have invested in this process. we recommend your support and we
2:30 pm
look forward to turning the more than 35 potential history districts in san francisco into actual historic districts. i hope the residents who are living in this district can ultimately feel the benefits of this and as they see it around them they can previous the look at the feel and the cultural aspects of their society. >> i'm opposed to this. >> thank you. >> thank you. i feel to justify approving the need for a history district specifically