tv [untitled] May 26, 2011 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT
reasons beyond the scope of this conversation, the planning department has historically chose on the rely on the census data as it's been presented in the 1990 that was the last year that the census data provided local governments with commute and that is the data we're using. commissioner sugaya: it does, but on the larger conversation with the ceqa issue, this has to be part of that go around. that is all. and the only other comment is ceqa is a process set up under state law and i think anybody has a right to appeal the negative dec or the pmnd and mr. colon knows that. president olague: i don't
support the appeal, but do endorse the comments of ms. hester. i have been hearing these for years from bike coalition, tom, and i have been having these convictions as long as i have been here and it is time we start tackling the issue. call the question. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion on the floor is to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> yai yai. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are on item 14a andb, 2004.091ck for 899 valencia street. the item on the calendar, 14a is the conditional use authorization and 14b the shadow. and i think you will hear them
both together, but you need to take your action on the shadow first before you take your c.u. action. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ben fu, planning department staff. the 899 valencia on planning code 134, 151, 175, and to allow the demolition of existing service station and construction of a new approximately 50,000 square foot 52'4" containing 18 dwelling units, ground-floor retail space and below-grade parking spaces and two commercial spaces and two car share spaces. the project utilizes the eastern neighborhood pipeline status per planning commissioning code section 175.6e to elect to conform to the controls under the former have lens ya street neighborhood commercial zoning district. and the project size currently
trends zoning district in a 55-foot high district. and the project seeks approval of findings regarding shadow impacts to a public mark in this case the mission playground per planning code section 295. the problem was the applicable requirements to planning code is consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan that complies with the first source hiring program and the project provides 18 three-bedroom dwelling units to the city's family housing stock. it voluntarily provides two car share spaces where none are required. the project minimizes the vehicular access for below-grade garage to approximately 12% of the frontage, well below the requirement of the 1/3 the width of the building. it will convert an underused site into a productive mixed-use development with street trees upgrades and ground floor commercial spaces or active uses that have ceiling height,
transparent windows and attractive street facade design and will not create adverse shadow impacts for the playground. the project design is consistent with and respects the existing neighborhood character and is an appropriate infill development that complements the existing development pattern in the packet we will submit to you, it shows the progression and design evolution since the data was submitted to where it is today. i am available for questions. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon. representing the project sponsor. i am going to make very two brief comments and threat architect go over the actual project design. first on parking, when we started this project, we had a requirement to provide one space for every unit and that is standard change with eastern neighborhoods and although we are a pipeline project, we
aren't required to comply with some of the current requirements including parking. so what we're asking is .75 spaces per unit and we believe it is appropriate here for the following reasons. all the units are three-room units and work well for families. the parking is located below grade and we have to build a full garage level so regardless of the number of spaces we allowed to provide there, we will have a full garage below grade level. none of the parking is at grade level so it doesn't reduce the amount of retail. and it doesn't have any negative impacts on pedestrian experience or other urban design concepts in general. we have done two other things in a sense to compensate for the residential parking and reduced the commercial parking and originally proposed four and only now proposing two and added those two car share spaces although none are required. i also want to mention a word
about the outreach and there are no requirements but we feel it's appropriate and something we want to do and ought to do. what we have is we have two general neighborhood meetings. one in early 2009 and one in late last year. we sent notices to people within 300-foot radius of the project site and if you look at the package that i submitted, exhibit a. has copies of the invitations we sent as well as a sign-in sheet of people who came to the meetings. we presented the project and you have their support letter in the exhibit. and we also presented the project to the hill neighborhood association and their support leter is exhibit c and they state in part that "it is the view of the supporting members that this project has been designed and developed with mindfulness to work with the community and the surrounding buildings." and further, that it is the our hope that the planning commission will approve the project on may 26, 2011. so the last item i want to
mention in terms of neighborhood outreach and support in exhibit d, there are over 30 letters with support from some of the neighbors that includes the residents as well as businesses. it is hard to get people to come to the hearings especially when they don't have any objections or are supportive of the project, but i hope you consider the outreach that we have done as well as the letters in our file. so one quick word about other commissions, we have obviously been to the rec and park commission as we already discussed, but we did also present the project to the hbc late last year. they overall was supportive of the design and a couple of things they liked about the project was the setback on the top floor, and they also liked the appearance of breaking the building down into a couple of smaller sections or smaller buildings, but i'm going to hand it over to the architect who will go over the design in
detail. >> thank you. herman morris. good afternoon. let's see. 18 units in four stories above the commercial, ground floor park i parking and this this is the ground floor. we have commercial units and we're currently committed to push with pg&e to get the transformers down in the garage. one of the units has a redenial entry in the back and the driveway is far away from any intersection as possible. two flat and the second large
open space and the rear yard in that area. we also have private decks on the roof deck of the building. so the neighborhood is sort of mixed in character and victo victoryia victoryians, and 1940 and pre-and post earthquake buildings but there is a predominance of 38 to 40 foot height on both sides of the structure. at the corner we have three buildings ranging from two to four stories over commercial. this is to the south. and to the west and kitty corner to us.
the street experience, pedestrian experience is wonderful. there are generally small tenants and tall first floors and transom windows above 9 feet and bookstores, galleries, mixed use materials and surfaces and toil and very vibrant and interesting street front and i proposed the contemporary high building material that takes cues from the surrounding neighborhood and is the materials and color and we want to have a strong building that will anchor the next corner. and the base shafts and capital and the base is the store front and stone base and the shaft being three levels of residential apartments and screens. and the capital penthouse which is set back five feet on 20th
street -- and six feet on valenc valenciaene and we add to that a bench that can respond to the existing heighth access of the neighboring buildings and setting back on the corner to give them more relief. as you can imagine, it is a little bit weird breaking the building into smaller modules that respond to the 25-foot loft character in the neighborhood. the corner is strong at union and bay and particularly where there is parking off the edge. this is the valencia street view. the screens around here and strong recesses at the commercial industry under this column and at the corner.
and those are the resin panels and bring in some color and the neighborhood that does well with color finnish aluminum and metal and fine corrugated metal with the panel between them and the tow er with the corner element and medical louvers and sun shades. and the penthouse. the limestone base and the colors of the siding.
is the staff director at rec park and the way he excuses the shadow is according to project sponsor to eliminate shadow impacts would result in significant changes that are not viable according to project sponsor because they would have to be reduced two units. that is not the standard in prop k which says if you are under 40 feet you are looked at with different eyes than at 54 feet and the two units on the top floor and the value judgment is not appropriate for this commissioner either and it affected and colored the report from rec park that says no problem. we're listening to the project sponsor and the project sponsor says we're going to lose units if we comply with prop k and don't cast any shadows.
that went straight through the entire process and that determination was made in 2007. no one has deviated from it at all and someone in planning had it. i don't know if it affected any of their analysis to do trade-offs of this nature by prop k. and this project is really old. the first review the department had of it was in july of 2004 and that is seven years ago. this is a pipeline project that need an extension because it ended january 19 of this year and there were two years of activity. there are staff memos saying the file is being closed because you haven't paid the bills and scurried around and came in and paid the money and reactivated
it. and it is hard to understand how this needed an expansion and that is from your own question and the question that pacific northwest why do you allow a building that goes to 53'4" according to the drawings to the top of the pirapet when you could reduce the height and not cast any shadows on the park across the street. there are some setbacks but no one looked at this as the start for saying it needs to comply with prop k and it was like saying no problem. thank you. >> this is precisely the top of project we need and we have underground parking and car share and we have a full ground
floor commercial and entreeway on 20th street and we don't have a curb cut and the 14 foot ceiling which is precisely what we have been talking about for the last nine years. the general height is 52 feet and combatable with the building around this air -- and completely compatible and shadow analysis was conducted and two hours in the morning and absolutely inconsequential and am extremely proud to be associated with tony morris and he has done a tremendous job and the building compatible with the surroundings and let me tell you about toby morris and before he takes on a prompt like this, he
absolutely involves the neighborhoodhood. and he communicates with anyone and everyone that is willing to talk to. we are extremely proud he has come out with a wonderful design and the perfect fit for this area. please approve it. >> i live in the liberty hill district and use valencia on a daily basis. the project sponsor did outreach to the neighborhood association and they presented the project at a general meetings. people were fairly impressed with the outreach and the presentation. the scale of project of an architect and i can speak about scale. and i think it is in keeping with the surroundings and i think that is a good match. and they provide detail and i
think it was well thought out. and adequate parking and the units have good quality and we felt that it was a good xachl. i am not speaking for myself, but i -- i am speaking for myself and i know that liberty hill supports it and the consensus was that the project provides an example for what liberty hill neighborhood association and neighbors in general rant to see in the neighborhood to use this as a measuring stick of other projects as well. and this project seems to address a lot of the concerns and issueses and would be a good fit and good addition to the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> my name is john murray.
i am local resident in very close proximity to this project and i am 100.06% for this project. and this is the shadow thing and to me it seems a bit ridiculous. san francisco is a beautiful city, a world class city and i enjoy it and am very much looking forward to this project to help beautify the neighborhood and help the neighborhood flourish and have some new neighbors and excited about going to have some new businesses and the new residents and the new businesses will support the local economy. and i think that the project is beautiful and as someone in direct proximity, i am in full support of the project. and i hope we get more projects like this in the area to help make our city better and more
beautiful. and to help our neighborhood grow and be that much more wonderful and we continue being world class city. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i am supportive of the project and as was mentioned, there's lots of support with the 30 letters from liberty hill and also in terms of the issue with the shadow, we have already d discussed that all things considered, it is still below the .1% annual increase in what would be the allowable amount at .06 and as far as the height is concerned, i think at 52 and a quarter feet they are a little higher than the original project which was probably 50 feet or below but part of it is crafting into the eastern neighborhoods
which requires or asks for a higher ground floor which is appropriate. it looks a lot better and just as they have had to reduce their parking level in keeping with the valencia n.c.t. so it creates the grouped floor height. again, no significant no change in the shadow issue, but it was why it's a little bit higher than it originally was. and it is a great project in that there are 18 three-bedroom units changing from 1100 to 1700 square feet and this is really housing that could be appropriate for families. it is big enough, enough bedrooms, there is parking for most of them. and they're townhouses -- not all townhouses but a number are townhouses which is a really good situation for a family to have the children at a different level and that is a very good plan. and design wise, i like it. although it's contemporary and i did talk to project sponsor and
the architect and a little bit about the possibility of having a little bit less glazing and there are elements where you put a wainscoting or a lower area that could be made a little bit more definite and perhaps at the top ends of the building to make it fit in if the windows, although they are not that way, but give that apeerps and get plenty of flight there. and the same with the cornice and there is an toeft similar the late cornice line of the other buildings by having the break at the height of the adjacent buildings and tie it into the corner sand really well done. olague r commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: just one more brief comment on the shadow.
basically ms. hester is correct that the project, however fantastic it should be, is the consideration. it is whether or not there is a significant adverse impact. there isn't. that is the standard i look at. that is the first standard and i will move adoption of the motion and our packets findings that the net new shadow from the project is not adverse. >> second. olague r commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i just wanted to comment on the building it and i think it does a lot of skillful things from diven shating the building to the -- of differentiating the streets and being in the vernacular and it's a larger building and still breaks the building down into the different
building expressions and very much like stepping down and transitions to the lower buildings and i do not have any suggested modifications to the contrary and would like to differ from commissioner antonini's observations that this building in it has the design which speaks to a complete thinking it through and i don't think any xhept we make by tweaking it here and there would make it a better building as it stands as it is. i am in support of it. as it is proposed. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i would like to acknowledge the leter from liberty hill neighborhood association and intreing they gave their full support knowing they had raised some vigorous opposition to another building in the neighborhood that we had. us which wasn't too much taller than this one i don't think but
maybe the context was a little bit different. >> no parking or something. >> i think the street was narrower. just like to acknowledge that. president olague: i wanted to ask how 315 was being adhered to. it is not going to be on site? >> the sponsor has the in lieu fee. olag president olague: there is some issues i have with this project and providing three-bedroom units and asking for .75 parking which is a relief, i like that it's providing extra bicycle spaces and al the car share and there are some good things. i don't think these types of units are going to be affordable to your average family. that is what i am concerned about actually. i know that can't be or isn't
necessarily the basis for not supporting this type of a project, but i do believe they will be out of the range of your average san franciscoian who is a nurse or teacher or middle class families looking to buy in decent neighborhoods. yo i don't think these are going to be afford to believe them. at some point i would like to hear back from staff and request to actually -- i might not even be here by the time you go on the market, but i think a lot of these units, they end up selling for close to $1 million per unit and that is not affordable family housing. and that is not the type of housing that we need to see more november this city i don't think. based on what i am hearing from the housing element and based on what i pear from abag reports and all the other studies i am constantly hearing presented to us here, i am not sure how some of the projects we're being asked to approve meet any of the standards around affordability and meeting the needs of
families and keeping families here in san francisco. at some point, you know, it would be interesting to note who are moving into these units of three-bedroom housing in the mission. a lot of the new projects that we're approving here, projects that have been aproved over the past five years, i would like to know if there is a way the know who is living in two and three-bedroom units that we are allegedly making available in order to fill the void for family housing in the city. when i hear people say things like this is the type of housing we need more of, i am not convinced that it is, especially not given the price point of most of the housing we are seeing on the market.