Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 14, 2012 8:30pm-9:00pm PST

8:30 pm
live in the property and not use it as a commercial facility, which leads me to the character in which we believe is trying to come into our neighborhood. her deed of trust states one, she is going to live in it and two, she is no and using it as a commercial space. i feel that she should -- and maybe go back to that bank and tell her it's not longer going to be a single-family residence loan. sorry about that. i am completely opposed to this. and would like to keep our neighborhood as quiet as possible. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing morning to the public comment portion is closed. opening it up to commissioners for questions, commissioner antonini? >> thank you. this is a very interesting proposal and i certainly can
8:31 pm
identify with it. i have a granddaughter who is looking for preschool in september and a few more on the way from what i understand. [ laughter ]. so it's an issue that affects all of us. there was some commentary about the other facilities that are available. and part of our packet includes a list of the various child-care facilities or preschools in the neighborhood or adjoining neighborhoods. but many of these are means of income tests. so people would not qualify if their income were higher than a certain level, or many of them closed at 2:30 and don't include a full days that one does. so i think there is no question that there is a need. and they would be principaled permitted at 15 or below and they are only going for five more children, which is why
8:32 pm
they are before us today. so i think there is a lot of potential for this. and i agree that i really like the university mound in the district. i know it very well having raised kids in the city and playing games over there, particularly at st. elizabeth, which is unfortunatialy closed right now, but archdiocese continuing re-opening it. i appreciate all the testimony by the various neighbors and the opposition, but i don't see how the impact should be that great. you are talking about 20 children. they are going to be dropped off, presumably, about 8:00 a.m., maybe a little bit before or after and then picked up, most of them in the late
8:33 pm
afternoon about 4:30 or 5:00. and and i don't think having a school in an area necessarily degrades property values. my kids went to st. brendons and the school was built much later than the houses. and their property values continued to gain all the time, even though they have nine grades with 40 kids per grade as well as a gymnasium and i haven't heard any complaints from the neighborhoods. this is a much larger impact than what we're talking about here. it would seem as though this use, i don't think should be that much of a problem as along as the white zone is there that people drop-off. and there is enough sound mitigation as possible. i kind of think this is a good project, but i certainly appreciate the neighbors'
8:34 pm
concerns and i hate to see a potentially house that could be used as a residence as another use, but it looks like a good use >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you. i echo those communities. i know it's hard to find space for preschools. we have had the same issue in our neighborhood and actually there is a preschool, two of them within a block from me that have 150 kids combined. it's interresidential neighborhoods and the kids play outside and they get twice that in applications every year for spots. my kids go there and i'm lucky enough to be able to walk and i have gotten families from this district who drive their kids across town to go there. so there is a need for preschools in the city. and 20 kids is not a lot. it certainly could be managed. i encourage you to continue to talk to each other, because no matter what condition we put on this, white zone or not, it's
8:35 pm
ultimately how it works and how it's integrated into the neighborhood. every kid that goes to my preschool, 150 kids has to be walked in by their parents. and it works. so i would encourage you to keep working on this. it is part of a cohesive community when you have churchs and preschools as part of residential neighborhoods. so i disagree that this is a business in a residential neighborhood. it's something to serve the neighborhood and i would urge the preschool to prioritize the neighborhood, so kids are not driving. that is something that we encouraged our preschools in our neighborhoods do. so i am supportive. >> commissioner borden? >> i'm going to agree with the previous commissioners and the way the project is designed it would be designed in a way that could be converted back into a home at a future time. as stated by commissioner antonini, it's as right use and
8:36 pm
they could put the preschool without this process at all. the fact that they are adding actually the net benefit. i am at that age demographic when all my friends are having kids and being told that they need to register their kids for preschool while they are in utero. we're part of a pilot aligned with the core curriculum standards and i work for a technology company and we're not at that level. preschool with core curriculum that makes for successful individuals. underserved kids particularly to do well in math in school. so there is a big difference
8:37 pm
between daycare and preschool and that is what we have a lack of is preschool. there are day-care centers. no one is arguing about the lack of and i think our own research found there is a daycare, but daycare didn't do is anything, particularly for kids of color. head start has been shown to be very ineffective, not to disrespectful. they provide a place for working families to place their children, but do not provide the generatation of a workforce of the future. i have to say that when we look at our priority principles and the general plan about serving families and neighbors who are serving youth and child-care, this is one of those issues that is equally as important. so i understand the concerns about noise. and it's actually interesting that we hear this a lot on people complaining about the loss of families and we hear these a lot. we have a lot of issues where
8:38 pm
people get upset about preschools and i find it surprising in a city that is supposed to be welcoming all kinds of people and families and lifestyles. and residential neighborhoods are the logical place where you have preschools. you don't want them on busy streets where they could get hit by a muni bus. the kids will be gone at night when people particularly sleep. there is a specific level of ambient noise and these kids have two nap times within their schedules. so i think some of the fears might be slightly
8:39 pm
exaggerated. >> the speaker pointed out it runs with the land and it's not specific to this particular owner, but now narrowly constructed is this cu? is it specifically and solely for increasing the number of preschool children that would be on this site? >> it would be for 20 children. and they wouldn't be able to do anymore than 20 children without come back for an additional use. there is a condition for a community liaison person. so even if it transferred person it could need a contact person. >> so this particular owner happened to exit the business, for example and someone wanted to come back in to run a preschool, they would be limited to 20 children? >> yes. >> they would have a community liaison? they would have all the
8:40 pm
conditions that still apply? >> yes. >> thank you. and it wouldn't be for any other use other than that? >> correct. >> could you call the question, please. >> yes commissioners, a motion and second to approve with conditions. (roll call ) . >> so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners that will place you on item 16 case no. 2012-0082c, at 1856 pacific avenue i believe as part of your packets there was a request for continuance by opposition; not supported by project sponsor or staff.
8:41 pm
>> good evening commissioners. i am david lindsey from department staff. the project was initially on your calendar earlier this fall as two discretionary review requests. shortly before that hearing was to take place, department staff required that the project requires conditional use authorization, due to its high above 50'. project sponsors were advised of this and filed the required conditional use application and dr applications were canceled and the associated fees were refunded. notification for the conditional use hearing was completed and here we are today. on behalf of staff i would like
8:42 pm
to apologize for the staff error and the ensuing confusion. the project before you is a is one-story vertical addition to a 11-unit apartment building located at 1856 pacific on and off mid-block on the north side of the street between franklin and gough streets. the property is located in the rm-3 zoning district ada heightented bulk district. the immediate neighborhood comprised of the subject block face and opposite block face is characterized by tall buildings ranging from 4-11 stories and subject block face with the exception of subject property and the adjacent lot to the east contains tall multi-unit buildings of 7-11 buildings.
8:43 pm
the property proposed a one-story vertical addition that would increase the building's height from approximately 42' to approximately 56'. which is well within the property's 80' height limit. the two partis who initially filed request for discretionary review of the project are the owner of the adjacent 7-story participant parking apartment building. the 5th floor tenants in the adjacent building are concerned that the project will reduce light and air to their apartments, which is located at the rear of the building behind the large light court on the eastside of the building.
8:44 pm
the department has received communication from four additional parties in opposition to the project. these parties, these four partize live at 1824 jackson street, condominium building located a block south of subject property. we have also received one additional letter of support. fished for the record i will pass copies of these to the commission. the department recommend that the commission approve with conditions for the following reason. the project was desirable in that it is consistent with the neighborhood character of tall-multi-unit apartment buildings. the project is consistent with the residential guidelines in that it maintains the existing building footprint and is
8:45 pm
consistent with the scale, height and bulk of other structures in the neighborhood. the property provides shared light wells to the adjacent building. the project maintains the unit count of 11 and complis with all relevant requirements of the planning code and consistent with relevant objectives and polices of the general plan. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is craig nickitas and i have a graphic presentation and mr. ionin, i wonder if it's possible to switch to this microphone, please?
8:46 pm
as mr. lindsey -- >> hold on one second, sorry. go ahead. >> as mr. lindsey pointed out, you can see with the yellow call out on the aerial photograph and to the west, the building in which the objectors to the project either live or own. 12 property line windows on the shared property line. the east wall of the objector's building. and a block book map showing the subject property. here is a block face view of it with the taller art deco
8:47 pm
building next door to the west. and a summary of the scope of the project in addition to remodeling and structurally upgrading the 11-unit apartment house, the propose is to add a new 5th story, a partial story, which respects the rear building line. and it also respects the adjacent light wells. there is also a proposal to construct a rear terrace and road deck and relocate the existing solar panels to the top of the new roof. here you see the subject property in the middle, surrounded by the two adjacent buildings. the upper story is extending only about three-quarters of the depth of the building with the terrace to that depth. a close-up showing the adjacent building with its property line
8:48 pm
windows. those four windows are on the 5th floor of the adjacent building at 1870 pacific. the white areas that were just added to the graphics show you where the new property line building walls with the addition would butt up against there. you will see that two of those windows would be covered by the proposed new construction. the other two windows would remain where they are in place. mr. lindsey mentioned the conditional use findings and i know it's been a long time, so i won't belabor these, but the project is entirely code complaint and meets the general plan and is a very appropriate for the rm-3 district. support for the project in addition to planning staff is as follows -- i'm sorry that the computer isn't showing you the property line. but the neighbor next door has
8:49 pm
given verbal support and neighbors across the street have provided letters of support and i have ten copies from each of them that mr.ionin can pass to you for the record and the objectors are next door. the main opposition stems, i think, from rooms on the 5th floor rear apartment that will -- one of the rooms will lose its property line window. both property line windows serve rooms that also have a larger windows that either face the street in the front unit or a light court in the rear unit. i have a plan here that shows you the two red rectangles on the windows are those that will be covered. all the black windows are 5th floor windows adjacent that will remain. here it is in elevation. and there is also a privacy concern due to one of the windows. here we are within the objector's apartment looking at the window at the very rear
8:50 pm
that would remain. the privacy concerns can easily be ameliorated by either frosting the lower pane of the window or putting obscure blass glass and the finished deck outside of this window will be 6' below the sill of this window. and we don't see that the privacy issue is insurmountable. it's a spectacular view. again, very adequate light and ventilation from that large light court. the room losing its window also shares light through this opening and the doors on the opening are glass. so we hope you will approve this project.
8:51 pm
we don't believe that property line windows are protect ed thank you very much. >> thank you. >> opening it up to public comment. i have some speaker cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good evening president fong and commissioners, my name is christine -- i am an attorney in san francisco and i am spoking on behalf of mr. and mrs. flavia, who are at 1870 pacific avenue unit 505, which is the property directly being affected by the project and also speaking on behalf of mr. bernard, who is at 1830 jackson
8:52 pm
street, who is not here tonight, and has not had an opportunity to send a letter and both partis are objecting to this project. i have some procedural objections to this. my office received the conditional use application this past monday, even though we had asked for it and therefore we had not had enough time to make a presentation in detail about what are the different reasons we object to it? i have been asked specifically to also voice his objections in that he apparently did not receive this notice of this application until just recently and was not able to attend tonight. now i am also informed that the sponsor and/or his architect never had a pre-approval meeting with the pacific
8:53 pm
heights association to get their input on this project. our main concern is that this project is in violation of the neighborhood aspects of the architecture. it's going to be immediately affecting my clients, not only light, but view, but also it's going to create shadows. it's going to also take away not only one window, but two windows practically speaking. so we would -- what i am asking the board to do tonight is to put this matter over to a later time that i will have an opportunity to address the board in a more detailed fashion. thank you very much. >> thank you.
8:54 pm
>> hello my name is judy hayes. we live at 1810 jackson street and with e want to express our concerns and objections. our concerns include four issues. one, the reduction of property value due to a significant impairment of view. two, insufficient time to respond to notification. three, [speaker not understood] we believe that this impact can
8:55 pm
be significantly mitigated by a modest motfication to modification to the plan. the proposed vertical expansion is 14' for one additional floor, which is materially higher than the other floors in the building, including the top floor and seems excessive given the necessary impact of the height expansion on so many other properties. a reduction of a few few could mitigate and at the same time not unduly hinder the project for the sponsor's plan. others are materially harmed by it, so should there be some design restraint when taking away the cherished and
8:56 pm
economically valuable views of many others? why isn't such a modest compromise in the best interest of the community? in addition to having insufficient time, insufficient notification, i would like to comment on the lack of due process. we were dumbfounded when we read the december 6th executive summary that recommends the approval of the conditional use application. how can this report be written before all sides have had an opportunity to express their comments and opinions at the hearing today? isn't this what this hearing today is for? this is our first opportunity to speak to the city authorities on this matter, and it appears to us that it's getting rammed through before affected partis can comment. for these reasons we do not feel the planning commission should approve the expansion currently planned at this time and would like the opportunity to meet with the sponsor and with the encouragement of the
8:57 pm
city to have the plan modified. thank you. >> good evening. my name is elizabeth welles and i currently live at 1824 jackson street. i have lived in san francisco for over 30 years. up until two years ago i lived in presidio heights where i enjoys a nice home with my daughters and a view of the golden gate. when i decided to move to pacific heights in this particular building on jackson, one of the things that was really appealing as it is for all of these neighbors plus others who didn't have time to come because of the short notice was the fact we had views. some great, not all of them, but we had partial views of the water. we paid for those views. all of us paid for those views, okay? the proposed addition, not just the floor, because if you look at the plan, it's not
8:58 pm
just an additional flash, floor, but the solar panels. you are almost looking at adding two floors, not one. they block the water view and i know right to view not necessarily, but what about right to value? we pay taxes and we pay taxes on property and property is high because you have a view. well, with this thing we will no longer have any views. and the question also is addition to solar panels under the draft motion it says, "the project is desirable as in keeping with the neighborhood character of tall multi-unit buildings." what about the neighborhood character that isn't next door to the building? what about the neighborhood character of people like us on jackson
8:59 pm
street on which there are multiple buildings that face this view? we're all affected by this one owner, one singular addition for one families. we're not talking about adding more space for families, but a penthouse for some owner who will block the view and dress decrease the value for all of us in the neighborhood. this is part of the character of the city. you can't encroach by building more and more higher and higher buildings. there was supposed to be a pre-application meeting. nothing. i went away for thanksgiving. i came back there was no notice. a neighbor sent me a xerox saying did you know there was a meeting about what was happening? i had no idea.