Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

tv   [untitled]    November 18, 2013 4:00am-4:31am PST

4:00 am
>> jonas let's take a two minute 20 minutes. >> i'd like to welcome everyone back to san francisco's planning commission for thursday november 14, 2013. i'll to remind the public that the commission does not permit any disruption and when speaking before the commission if you care to please state your name for the record. commissioners you left off under your regular calendar for case x
4:01 am
and z request for downtown zoning administration and they will consider a request for a vaurngs >> i'm kevin with planning staff. the request before you today is to amend a project in november intuitively the commission approved a demolition and have a new story believe for the mechanical enclosure and 2 hundred and 400 off street parking spaces donation to other facilities. the planning code requirements from the supply of the driveway the width of the entry of the
4:02 am
driveway. it is to add 4 additional floors containing dwelling opt and with a roof height 0 of 4 hundred and 60 feet and it would there the dwelling count. as you know no additional parking is from the previous approval. aside from the proposed height there the basic form and do you see this person in court of the building wouldn't change, however, it triggers the remit that the commission los angeles county the separation of towers my ground level and bulk limitations. the revisions need to have the dwelling empower looked at. i'll be happy to discuss the
4:03 am
variance in further daily but in conclusion the staff recommends this. the goals and objectives to concentrate dense urban context with the walking area. it's consistent with the overall transit center plan. we've received no communications or objections to this entitlement. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions >> thank you. project sponsor please. good evening good afternoon, commissioners i'm bob and i'm veil we're here on behalf of the reality. and we've got an architect here and our attorney
4:04 am
>> i need to speak into this one. thank you in your packets there are things in your packets that i'll briefly review. sometimes it's good with the end in mind. this gives an image of 3 hundred and 50 feet and the nylon u underground parking shown and the red is our locations and the yellowish i am sorry are the new housing and the green is parkland and green is the new housing development. this is in the surrounding development as we know that today. what's been approved is under construction that you are this is a bird's-eye view of the project and you'll see how it intrathsd including our plaza
4:05 am
when we designed r with t m g architects. just some detail on the ground floor and the detail and some of the bike parking and how the bike parking is assessable and, of course, this is how the site looks today. this is the way we hope the site will look in 2 and a half years. this is a rendering of the building as we see it fitting into some of the larger towers are the approved in the neighborhood. i'll turn it over >> it's a pleasure to be here again, it was 50 weeks we stood here before to print the
4:06 am
building. to present 41 we presented it was a 31 story designed by our architect. this residential tower along with the plazas we integrated into the park was unanimously approved by all of you. today, we're here to seek approval of the same building and plaza only with an additional 4 floors when takes the building from 3 hundred and 8 feet to 3 hundred and thirty feet to 3 hundred and 98 units. you can see the original building on the left in green. and on the right is the 3 hundred and 60 feet building. i hope i ago the building on the
4:07 am
right is more elegant. i'd like to give you a little bit of background how we came theory the second time. bob and i starting working on this project many years ago and times have changed for san francisco. when we originally designed our believe we were advised by our community that the market size supported a smaller building. this was the alley and it was accommodated by the bay bridge off-ramps. since this time the building has been transformed by oscar park macro this a very, very desirable residential location. the market conditions have also changed. i'm amazed when i walk around the neighborhood and realize
4:08 am
there are 5 major office towers under construction within a 5 minute walk of this site. putting more jobs near this site is a good idea. we apologize we had a i different view >> commissioners we reviewed our design with members of the staff everyone agreed that this is a more attractive design and a better project albeit it they wish he'd done that in the beginning. including all the environmental issue reviews we took no shortcuts. only thing that has changed is the height. this is the bicycle park it's
4:09 am
the same and white blood cell this increases the number of housing and increase in on site housing commissioners everything you liked l about this is the same it's just a little bit taller. >> a quay has been raised who will build this promise. we've been in discussion where various developers who have the track record to complete this. we're in an initial agreement with an organization who we have confidence in. i'd like to read a message from bernard 0 who couldn't be here
4:10 am
today and he writes the following quote the proposed design increases the building from 31 to 35 as far as they are concerned, for the design of the facade was originally articulated to articulate the tower and divide the facade into smaller components. the addition of the 4 floors enhance the facade and improves the promotions of the different elements of the building and creates a stronger contrast between the vertical and the horizontal elements. we believe that the additional height of the building enhances the original design goals unquote. we have additional signs from your packet such as the varies
4:11 am
elevation. we're happy to answer any questions you may have. we believe this is a better project and ask for your support and approval today >> if there's nothing further i'll open this up to public comment i have one speaker card. paul >> thank you. good afternoon paul with hines. it's a full service office. we recently into entered into an agreement to purchase 41. our investment partner is a very substantial global manager and advisory for institutional
4:12 am
capita. their extreme e extremely enthusiastical we think that will be a terrific edition to the skylight. it's walk able to the trait and restaurants and so many other napts and once we complete our due diligence we're looking forward to commenceing construction on the project that's before you today as soon as possible. we couldn't get this done quickly enough. so we thufk support in project >> thank you. thank you >> good afternoon. i'm april and i'm with supervisor kim's office she were unable to attend the meeting.
4:13 am
i wanted to talk about some comments. the supervisor was able to be in touch with the project sponsor this monday evening but they wanted to express her concerns not necessarily specific to this process but adding the new height when the project was at a different height. as the presenter just mentioned market conditions are changing and what does that mean for what the zoning likewise. we want to be thought of of what that will look like as well as when the market conditions change and may not be as strong as now does that mean we're going to not see the promises that are originally entitled. i think one other comment wee she wanted to make as a project
4:14 am
entitlements move from various investors they retain the level of thoughtfulness as when we came before the commission. thank you very much >> thank you. >> sue hester. i think you've done more projects on the south pardon me as an attorney not as a builder. over the past thirty years than most people the alley pattern south of market is difficult. in the late 90s when you were approving all the work buildings there were 6 story buildings
4:15 am
that came through. and i went to law school at golden gate. we don't have a really good circulation or empower we have wider streets and use of the sky from the people that are in them on mission and howard and folsom and clara. so at certain level oh, the pretty pictures have to come down. you're adding more height into a
4:16 am
wide street but that's a deceptive picture who's going to see anything like that. so adding height south of market that has narrow streets should be a dig decision for you all. it's tread as though it's a pitfall oh, nothing by the staff. it's unfortunate the planning department at some point should move down in one of these interior blocks and understand it they don't. they've never moved on a constrained site maybe once upon a time. but i have an experience from going to law school there. i had clients on howard that was a low rise building.
4:17 am
i'm asking you to think carefully about adding more bulk, more density and more exceptions on a height on an interior block no one will see those pictures their infancy >> any additional public comment. okay seeing none, public comment is closed >> i want to recap my previous position and raise a couple of questions considering the increased height. i'll be listening i listening to what the rest of the commission says. i think the project was thoughtfully designed particularly in the lobby together with the park.
4:18 am
i think that was a strong argument and the architects did especially well. the zoning was creating only a mandatory front door open space. the building itself was well crafted during its orientation. the fact it has affordable on site it was an important point. i remember 2 years plus ago i went to discuss the merits of considering that at that time, it was an open ended question. the way the project was brought forward i could see from an old san francisco family made a big impression. the questions which arises together with the fact the project is potentially being
4:19 am
passed into someone else raises a concern for me. one is we entitle buildings here commenting to a southern type of architecture which we take as an ingrept to approve entitlements. when a project gets passed on i didn't want to say flipped when the project gets absorbed there is an opportunity where it will make is reasonable to switch to another anxiety. but i don't believe unless the director tells me we'll be expecting this project to be delivered as we were approving it including the additional
4:20 am
height. >> commissioners the typical project when it comes in for it's permits the zoning professional has to make a phone call to make sure it's what you, you approved. that's both the size of the building and the design of the building. so if the commission would like to make a statement about the need to maintain this design you can certainly deposit. i don't believe you can still make the specification of the design the approval but you can say this design can moved in that particular way >> i think i'll ask for a building of like quality and design execution which goes into who don't the workable drawings. the next is a discussion i'd
4:21 am
like to have with the director and staff. the one element that was difficult even with the reduced size was the tower separation. awhile open it's on if you can bring up those two comparable images while on itself the building might be slightly more squat i didn't or obviously is lower it has more tower separation than the building that is in front of us. the decision i'd like to initiate with the department is the commission when they were not fully informed this building was come back because in the course one could potentially considered the separation of towers by which the building would shave a little bit back it would only linearly expand the
4:22 am
buildings. with the additional 4 floors theirs less separation and how towers are meeting and that's going to make is darker and more windy. i hope if something like that happens again, i would like to have a larger discussion of how we were revisiting the promise and linearly stentd the entitlements with the exceptions that come with that. i'm concerned about that. i'm in support of the project because it does many things right but i'd like to see the department the commission in the future to take a little bit more time to consider this when it comes up again >> commissioner. >> yeah. i'm not sure quite
4:23 am
sure commissioner moore is talking about tower separation but air-conditioned height wouldn't bring it closer to an adjacent tower by closer to towers that are seen visiblely. >> by tower separation our basically allowing other towers within the area to create important light on the way we see the skyline how light comes down to the street. we're exuding and basically, not looking at tower separation. so a shaped tower which rates back would indeed not require the extension of that entitlement >> well, i don't see it's the case before i think it's
4:24 am
virtual virtually same. that building stands by itself. i frequently take that off-ramp for fremont or folsom it's quite a ways from any kci terminal or planned tower in the area so it's being close to other towers is not the issue in terms of how it will stack up to the others and there's oscar parkway that opens up and a deals with the exemptions. for example, rear yard it doesn't apply mr. comply but it effective is a rear yard and wind currencies they're not different only one in 20 test cases. and the bulk requirements and tower design changes a little bit.
4:25 am
but if you've got a wireder for play while tapering to the top you're able to make the units for attractive. i've been in stwoerz when i get towards the top they get clarify phonetic. view wise that will make for a better experience for the residents. so i like this and think it's fine. i believe if mr. guy could answer a question. this is height requirement at the 368 >> that's correct it rezoned it to 3 hundred and 60 feet. that's what i thought it's below the allowable and now itself there. i'm compliant and for those who
4:26 am
don't like parking. i'd like to see more parking anyway but so i think it does a lot of good things and you know it allows us to put more unit and probably even larger units within the given floor plate. it will add something visiblely to that off-ramp i spoke about when is banner. you see the buildings off in the distances but you don't feel like you're in the city. this is fine. i know we've approved. the other thing i want to ask maybe mr. chandler. we've talked about architect and it's my assumption should this be developed will i hines
4:27 am
they'll condition with the same architect >> i can't speak they have no tension to change the design by who they're to use as their architect we haven't gone this far. >> great that sounds i think i got a node from the gentleman and it's going to be good that's what we're approving and wecht to make sure what's built is what we're seeing now. there have been incidents in the past with that movrpd into somewhere else >> commissioner wu. >> so i want to ask staff to be clear i believe the answer is no if the project is purchased by
4:28 am
hooindz the site can't change; correct. >> he can't that's the way it was worded and that's required. >> thank you so i'm supportive. >> commissioner, i apologize it's actually within the planning code within this special use district it's required to be on site as well. >> which zone. >> it's the trans bay special use district. >> great. so i'm supportive of this project as it stands a, you know, because of inclusionary requirements the more units there are the more b m rs there are. it reminds me of the challenges we're phasing with that
4:29 am
affordability. i think there maybe should interest to look at all of sylmar. i know it wasn't in the plan but donates a challenge going ahead. if we continue to approve project that comply with inclusionary it's either 12 percent closing arguments we're going to be out of balance could we put thought to that going forward. but this has met the conditions so i'm supportive >> commissioner hillis. >> i am in support it approvals by taking up 4 floors. i wasn't negotiating with the neighborhoods but it was an economic issue. this additional height is not an issue the design was an issue.
4:30 am
that nod you were going to stick with architect donna you like the design and the architect. i think that's important we're not xhooep i to keep the architect but i'm supportive of that >> director ram and i wanted to you had a couple of things. with respect to the design we can the message i've hearing you like the design proposal and if there are changes we need to keep with the quality materials that's being proposed. where respect to the affordability it is somewhat different in the trans bay within the tans bay plan