Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 REUBEN, UNI ROSE Re: 721 Beach Street Brief Opposition to Appeal # Our File No.: This office represents Jeff and Helena Sears, owners of 1 Beach Street (the "Property"), who are proposing to demolish the existing 558 square foot retail structure at the site and construct a four-story, 40-foot tall mixed-use building in its place (the "Project"). The new building would consist of 10,985 square feet, with the bottom two floors consisting of commercial uses and the upper two floors consisting of residential use. The required off-street parking will be provided through deeding space at their adjacent property - thus eliminating the need to create a curb cut along the pedestrian-heavy Beach Street. The Sears currently operate their bicycle rental business (dba "Blazing Saddles") from both the Property and 15 Street (also owned the Sears). rear the Property abuts the side of the building at 15 Hyde Street (the Street Building"). The Project would create an opening between the new building at the Property and the Hyde Street Building. The majority of the retail portion of the business would be operated at the Property, and the Hyde Street Building would store the bicycles and continue to house the maintenance operations of the business. Bicycles will be transported between the two locations through the internal opening, rather than along the Hyde Street and Beach Street sidewalks. Garbage and Exhibit A James A. Reuben I Andrew J. Junius I Kevin H. Rose I Daniel A. Fratt1n Sheryl Reuben' I David Silverman I Thomas Tunny I Jay F. Drake I John Kevlin Petrone I Melinda Sarjapur I Kenda H. Mcintosh I Eigem1an 2 1 I John One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco, CA tel:

13 school years at George Washington High School, worked on Fisherman's Wharf cracking crabs. After high school, Jeff met Helena, who grew up in Brazil and was attending college in the city, and they married three months later. Jeff and Helena first started a pedi-cab business, leasing space on Port property, and worked with the city to develop the first ordinance regulating the industry. Soon thereafter, they moved the business to the Hyde Street Building, where, in the early 1990s, founded Blazing Saddles. Working tirelessly, they have grown this single location to seven locations throughout Francisco. Jeff is now a board the recent their now out are to move to neighborhood where spent their life. Jeff and Helena have dedicated their lives to their business and the Fisherman's Wharf community, and they have designed the Project to further improve the neighborhood. They hired an architect, Steve Geiszler, whose offices are located just a few buildings away from the Property on Beach Street, due to his understanding of the built fabric of the neighborhood and in One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco. CA 94104

14 2006. on 6,299 square and retail space on the first and second floors consisting of 6,558 square feet. While the previous project was technically considered 40 feet tall under the Planning Code, it included a fifth story with an effective height (from the front curb) of 53 feet, 4 inches (with parapet). The project took advantage of the upslope grade to increase the effective height at the rear of the Property. A mitigated negative declaration ("MND") was issued by the Planning Department and was upheld by the Planning Commission at a hearing on October 16, At that hearing, a number of residents gave public comment in opposition to the project, generally citing three ( 1) there is insufficient parking for four residential units and retail space (no off-street parking spaces were proposed), the project would have a negative impact on area light, air and and the project was too tall Many made a point of saying that they supported development at the site, but wanted sufficient parking provided and a lower height. A number of speakers suggested the height be reduced to 40 feet. At the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission upheld the MND, but expressed reservations about the project itself, due to the amount of public comment in opposition. The Zoning Administrator decided that he would bring the building permit for the project to the One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco. CA tel:

15 did not meet vote of 5-0. B. Subsequent Project Alterations and Public Outreach Jeff attended the 2008 Planning Commission hearing, and heard the concerns of many of his neighbors. Soon after the hearing, the Property became available for sale. Identifying it as a unique opportunity to improve their business operations and construct a home back Jeffs San Francisco, and Helena purchased the Property. significant concerns neighbors, thing was to project to what to a they to a 3.5 foot parapet. They reduced the number of proposed dwelling units, and provided offstreet parking with deeded parking space at their Hyde Street Building. Further, they changed the architectural style of the structure from strict modern to one that was more consistent with the existing buildings in the Fisherman's Wharf district, including using recycled bricks that resemble those used at the Ghirardelli Building. One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco, CA St

16 on to discuss their owners' unique concerns; February 15, 1 Also held at several neighboring buildings; March 7, 2011: Held at architect's office; February 29, 2012: Held at neighbor's house on North Point Street. to be eliminated, no specific requests project modifications. approached, Jeff and appeared at a board a over and 1, so much energy crafting the However, on the following Sunday, they received another from the APN informing them that it was rescinding its endorsement, and that it would neither endorse nor oppose the Project. One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco. CA

17 building. This removes two large blocks that would have been viewed by the neighbors, and provided a lightwell in each side of the building, breaking the continuous side elevation. While the Appellant asks for additional reduction of the bulk of the elevator and stair penthouses, the Sears have already significantly reduced the size of these areas to the smallest bulk possible. elevator penthouse on the roof is required to allow access for those with disabilities. After the Project was approved by the Planning Commission, the Sears worked directly with the adjacent property owner at Hyde Street to further reduce the impacts on their a reduction bulk at adjacent to the property roughly 10 3 indicated that they are comfortable with current Diagrams illustrating the difference height and bulk.. vanous vers10ns the Project is attached as Exhibit A. The Appellant claims the Project's design could be improved by eliminating a floor of the building. While the Sears would like to satisfy the needs of everyone from the neighborhood, the project modifications proposed by Appellant simply would not allow them to achieve their goals One Bush Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA tel: 4 i

18 to the building, will significantly improve the businesses' operation. The second floor of commercial use is also critical to the Sears' business needs. The main retail headquarters of Blazing Saddles will be relocated to the first and second floors of the Project. Significant space will be used for the storage and display of bicycles. Also, the Property is a narrow lot feet wide and at least two full stories are necessary to provide adequate publicly-accessible retail space that will allow for a comfortable experience for Blazing Saddles' customers. addition, business's administrative offices operate m Building, resembles a parking garage more space. at a separate location on Mason Street. offices to the allowing all Blazing Saddles' office functions to operate a singular, comfortable location. This back-office space will also be physically connected to the Hyde Street Building, allowing bicycles, garbage and recycling to be easily moved between the buildings, rather than along busy Hyde and Beach Streets. The Sears have now incorporated three rounds of significant modifications to the Project, and believe that they have responded to neighborhood concerns in good faith. The effective One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco. CA tel:

19 a out to the Beach Street blockface is attached as Exhibit B. C. Impacts to Hyde Street Properties Unavoidably, an urban infill project will have some impacts on adjacent properties. Currently, the rear of three properties along Hyde Street are adjacent to the near-vacant subject Property ( Hyde Street, Hyde Street, Hyde Street). The Project will have some impact on light and air reaching these properties, but these impacts are limited. First, three have rear yards on their own lots, so they continue to maintain access to light and Second, rear yards 2741 Hyde Street 273 buildings (both dwelling units above ground retail) both be adjacent to a rear yard ls being provided by the Project at its third and fourth providing greater light and air access from more than just their own rear yards. Third, Hyde Street is a commercial office building, and therefore the tenants generally only occupy the building during the day and would be less impacted Hyde Street will continue to maintain some light and air access directly from the north, as there will be a significant gap between the Buena Vista Cafe and the Project above the single floor of the Buena Vista Cafe. The Sears have also incorporated a One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco. CA

20 are as Exhibit C. As for the properties on North Point Street that are upslope and directly south of the Property, there will be virtually no impact to the light and air access they currently enjoy. As the east elevation indicate, the Project will vertically encroach the basement elevation of the North Point Street residences 4 6 inches. However, the Hyde Street Building is located in between the Property Add to that Point residences, and is 2 feet, 6 inches taller than the provide a roughly 37-foot rear yard, and that the the D. Scooter Rental Business The Appellant also cites the impacts of an existing scooter rental business at the Property. The scooter business was previously run entirely out of the Hyde Street Building - which is not One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco, CA fax:

21 now a policy not supporting or opposing projects, it has \Vritten a letter confirming that and Helena have reached out to the group on several occasions seeking input. APN's letter is attached as Exhibit E. Jeff and Helena are proud to propose a Project that will significantly beautify and improve the neighborhood, and the significant neighborhood support underscores efforts to craft the Project a way that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. F. Project Benefits Project will a improvement to neighborhood, the benefits: street use ls nor the shortest building. It has a uniform with no consistent the other buildings on this block; 2. The Project has an aesthetic that is based on the existing built environment of the neighborhood. It incorporates a brick fac;ade using bricks that resemble other One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco, CA

22 sidewalks, are Garbage and will take place on Hyde Street, freeing up additional room on busy Beach Street. The Project avoids constructing a new curb cut along Beach Street by deeding space at the Hyde Street Building for the new residential use; 4. The Project will have little additional impact beyond existing conditions in the area. It will simply provide Blazing Saddles with additional space on a site where it already operates. The business generates little automobile traffic, as the vast majority of customers are tourists who travel to the area by foot or public transit. 5. Project an appropriate development this remaining vacant lot on the subject lot is zoned (Community Business), and the neighborhood character is that of a mix of tourist-oriented commercial uses and residential uses. The Project proposes a mixed use building with residential use and less than 5,000 square feet of retail space to be devoted to a tourist-oriented business, with a height and bulk that is well within the character of the existing built environment. One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco. CA 94 i

23 s more years the neighborhood, and have a strong interest in constructing a project that benefit the area and build upon the unique and successful neighborhood character that has developed there. We respectfully request that you deny this appeal of the building permit and allow the Project to move forward as proposed. Very truly yours, JUNIUS & and Exhibit A One Bush Street. Suite 600 San Francisco, CA

24 7/14/2015 Gmail 721 beach Niall Vignoles 721 beach Niall Vignoles To: Niall Vignoles Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:41 PM Forwarded message From: Greg Holzman Date: Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:07 PM Subject: 721 beach To: Niall Vignoles Dear Board of Appeals, I attended approximately 3 meetings held between the project sponsors and the neighbors of 721 Beach Street prior to the April 10, 2013 hearing, each with at least 10 neighbors present. At none of these meetings did the project sponsors disclose their intent to place a large elevator penthouse on the roof of their building. Access to the roof was discussed as our meetings progressed because they were making it sound like they were capitulating to our requests for fewer 6 8 foot structures on the roof ( which they'd explained were necessary for stairs and an elevator for the property) they were proud to tell us they were doing something to the roof that would allow the removal of one of the roof structures. They NEVER discussed an elevator that actually would open on to the roof and therefore require much more height. In addition the drawings they showed us never made clear that a large structure was being considered for placement on the roof. Had the project sponsor disclosed their intent of constructing such a rooftop elevator penthouse, I ( along with all of my neighbors ) would have asked the Board not to allow the construction of such a rooftop structure. We would have explained to the developers that this was clearly overkill. In this neighborhood ( given our weather) no one accesses their roofs more than a few times per year. In this case they'll use it a few times a year and everyone who lives here or visits our fair city will see it and wonder why??? I am disappointed with the lack of forthrightness on the part of the project sponsor in disclosures related to rooftop construction. I am equally disappointed in the Planning Dept that didn't act on all of our behalf as citizens of this well planned and beautiful city we call home. Sincerely Greg holzman Exhibit B Greg Holzman 1/2

25 The following is an effort to explain why we, the neighbors, did not include the elevator on the roof in any prior appeal. First: We were at the hearing for the purpose of hopefully reducing the overall scale and bulk of the building. Second. We never focused on a rooftop elevator structure because we always understood the structure to be for equipment to power the elevator. We had talked with the developer, in our neighborhood meetings, about hydraulics so they wouldn't need an equipment house. None of us ever imagined/ pictured anyone thinking about an elevator that actually opened onto the roof. We all know how rarely we use our roofs, so the idea of an elevator needing to open on the roof never entered our thinking. Also, because the developer repeatedly discussed that no rooftop structure would be bigger than 6 to 8 feet tall, we knew enough to know that such a structure could not possibly house an elevator opening onto the roof. Third: The plans we were provided with for the hearing did not call out an elevator penthouse that opened onto the roof. We were not provided City approved plans with dimensions or purposes marked. At the 2013 hearing, it was obvious that our points re height and bulk were not going to carry the day, but still all the developer spoke about was all they'd done to reduce the roof structures and how hard they worked to please the neighbors. The Searses and their attorney never made a point of discussing that they intended to bring an elevator opening up to the roof, based on ADA requirements or otherwise. Any discussion of elevator opening on roof was not handled prominently in the hearing, and because there was no indication of opening at neighborhood meetings or indicated developer s brief, I was not on the lookout for such discussion. What we heard, based on all of the prior meetings / drawings, was that the developers wanted/ needed an ADA approved elevator. Even then based on the 6 -to 8-foot height, we assumed the elevator was simply for the interior of the building. It made no sense that they needed or wanted the elevator to access the roof and how could it, based on the 6-8 feet we'd repeatedly heard. It wasn't until we saw the eyesore that is there today that we put 2 and 2 together. Their deception is now obvious and we started the complaint process leading to where we are today. Please take jurisdiction of this situation and protect our waterfront for all the right reasons. Please review all access routes up to the roof to determine the most acceptable route given the lack of requirement for an elevator and given the need to protect the incredible resource that is the San Francisco waterfront. In spite of developer's claims: We now know that there is no requirement for elevator access to a residential roof deck. There are low-profile alternatives that would not harm the beauty of the waterfront and would still enable the developer s handicapped father to still access the roof from the residential unit Thank you Sincerely Greg Greg Holzman Office Cell Founder Pacific Organic Produce/ Purity Organic Fruits and Juices EXHIBIT C

26 EXHIBIT D1

27 EXHIBIT D2

28 EXHIBIT D3

29 August 31, 2015 Our File No.: BY HAND DELIVERY President Ann Lazarus San Francisco Board of Appeals 1650 Mission Street, Room 304 San Francisco, CA Re: 721 Beach Street Brief in Opposition to Jurisdiction Request on Permit Numbers 2010/11/29/5645S and 2014/05/01/4707 Dear President Lazarus and Commissioners: This office represents Jeff and Helena Sears ( Sears ), the owners of 721 Beach Street (the Property ), where they are currently constructing a four-story, 40-foot tall mixed-use building (the Project ). The new building consists of 10,703 square feet, with the bottom two floors containing commercial uses and the upper two floors containing residential uses. The present Jurisdiction Request is for appeal of the Site Permit, issued January 15, 2013, and for a permit addendum issued June 24, 2014, for work that included a new structural system along the East property line, new stair configuration at the rear of the property, new elevator, lobby layout and updated of occupancy. Therefore, the Jurisdiction Requestor essentially asks to reopen appeal of the entire Project, despite the fact that construction is substantially complete, and the only argument stated in the Request is related to the elevator penthouse, which the Sears have modified in order to resolve this issue. Specifically, the Sears have submitted revised elevator plans to comply with the Board of Appeals direction at the August 5, 2015 hearing to follow the massing of the 9-6 elevator

30 President Lazarus and Commissioners San Francisco Board of Appeals August 31, 2015 Page 2 penthouse volume, even if the area of refuge goes beyond the 9-6 mark (plans attached as Exhibit A). Under the current proposal, the majority of the elevator penthouse is 8 8 high, with two small 7 ½ pop ups. The highest point of /2 tall is only 2-3 ½ wide, designed in compliance with this Board s request and at the lower limit of what is possible for the elevator penthouse. The Jurisdiction Request is unnecessary because the Sears have resolved the elevator penthouse design in a manner understood to be acceptable to the City and Board of Appeals. Moreover, if jurisdiction was to be granted, it would cause substantial delay to the Project by putting the entire Project on hold in order to address the limited matter of the elevator penthouse, which has in fact been resolved as requested by the Board. Therefore, the Jurisdiction Request should be denied. A. Factual Background The Sears currently operate their bicycle rental business ( Blazing Saddles ) from 2715 Hyde Street (also owned by the Sears). The rear of the Property abuts the side of the existing building at 2715 Hyde Street (the Hyde Street Building ). The Project would create an opening between the new building at the Property and the Hyde Street Building. The majority of the retail portion of the business would be operated at the Property, and the Hyde Street Building would store the bicycles and continue to house the maintenance operations of the business. Bicycles will be transported between the two locations through the internal opening, rather than along the Hyde Street and Beach Street sidewalks. Garbage and recycling pick-up for both buildings will /Jurisdiction Request/LTR-721 Beach St. BOA brief

31 President Lazarus and Commissioners San Francisco Board of Appeals August 31, 2015 Page 3 take place on Hyde Street, off the busy and scenic Beach Street. The rear part of the second floor at the Property will be used for back-office space for the business. The Project s residential use will allow the Sears the opportunity to return to the City where they met, work, and spent much of their lives. The Sears are eager to move back to San Francisco. Not only have they contributed to the Fisherman s Wharf Neighborhood through Blazing Saddles, Jeff advocates for the neighborhood as a board member of the Fisherman s Wharf Community Benefit District. The Project will be the new home for Blazing Saddles and the Sears. B. Procedural Background The Planning Commission held a mandatory discretionary review hearing for the Project on March 22, 2012 and approved the Project by a vote of 5-0, determining that the Project did not meet exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. DBI issued building permit application nos and to erect the mixed-use building. This Board then heard and denied an appeal of building permit application no One of the major concerns raised by the appellants in that appeal was height. On April 10, 2013, the Board voted to deny the appeal. On June 15, 2015, Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez requested suspension of permit application numbers and due to a complaint that a stair penthouse not authorized by the Project s permits was being constructed. Mr. Sanchez determined that the structure was an elevator penthouse, and that the elevator penthouse was being constructed in conformity with the approved plans, and on June 18, 2015 he requested that /Jurisdiction Request/LTR-721 Beach St. BOA brief

32 President Lazarus and Commissioners San Francisco Board of Appeals August 31, 2015 Page 4 DBI release the suspensions of the building permits, allowing construction at the Property to resume. Appellant then filed an appeal of that decision, which was heard on August 5, At that hearing, the Board of Appeals asked the Sears to reduce the size of the elevator penthouse (which they have agreed to do), but otherwise upheld the building permits. The present Jurisdiction Request was then filed. C. The Sears have Reduced the Size of the Elevator Penthouse in Plans Submitted to the City At the Board of Appeals hearing on August 5, the Commissioners requested that the Sears adhere to a maximum elevator penthouse height of 9-6 above the finished roof. However, given the area of refuge required above the elevator cab, the Sears were given the option of trading off a greater height than 9 6 for the refuge area if other areas of the elevator were lowered. In other words, the massing of the originally approved 9-6 volume should be equal to or less than to the massing of the new elevator penthouse even if the area of refuge goes beyond the 9-6 mark. The Sears have revised the elevator plans achieve that. D. The Sears have a Vested Right to the Granted Permits If a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the permit. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission et al. (1976) 52 Cal.App.4th Here, construction is substantially complete, at a significant cost to the Sears, in reliance on permits issued long ago after approval by the Planning Commission, the Board of Appeals, the Planning Department and /Jurisdiction Request/LTR-721 Beach St. BOA brief

33 President Lazarus and Commissioners San Francisco Board of Appeals August 31, 2015 Page 5 the Department of Building Inspection. It would be manifestly unfair to stop the construction undertaken pursuant to these properly granted permits. As discussed above, the Sears have agreed to reduce the size of the elevator penthouse and have already submitted plans to Planning and DBI outlining the request to reduce the size of the penthouse in line with the feedback provided by this Board, and will submit a formal revision permit to DBI shortly. However, the decision to reduce the size of the penthouse does nothing to undermine the permits originally granted. The Sears simply wish to be the best neighbors possible, and move ahead with the Project without further delay. Jurisdiction Requestor s cited case of Stokes v. Board of Permit Appeals (1997) 52 Cal.App.4 th 1348 is inapplicable here. In Stokes, the permit-holder was found to have lied about the nature of the use of the property when he applied for a permit, and the permit was issued based on that misrepresentation. Here, the elevator penthouse has been shown consistently throughout the entitlement process and was on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on mandatory discretionary review and by the Board of Appeals at the first appeal hearing. As is customary, once the Project s site permit was approved, construction drawings were prepared incorporating the specific mechanical systems in the building, which drawings were approved by Planning Department and DBI. An elevator penthouse is permitted by the Planning Code up to a height of 16 feet. (Planning Code Section 260(b)(1)(B).) The Sears now seek to further reduce the mass of the elevator penthouse in compliance with this Board s feedback. Therefore, unlike in Stokes, here is no misrepresentation that caused the issuance of a permit. The quote from the Sears April 4, 2013 brief that is claimed to be a misrepresentation /Jurisdiction Request/LTR-721 Beach St. BOA brief

34 President Lazarus and Commissioners San Francisco Board of Appeals August 31, 2015 Page 6 was that the elevator to the roof was required to allow access for those with disabilities. Clearly a roof elevator makes the roof accessible to those with disabilities. Therefore, there was no misrepresentation, much less one that caused the City to issue a permit for the project. The Jurisdiction Requestor faces a necessarily high hurdle to reopen hearing on a permit long since issued and cannot begin to meet that standard. E. Conclusion The Sears are excited to construct a project that will benefit the area and provide the opportunity to return to the city they have long called home. The Jurisdiction Requestor seeks to halt the Project despite the fact that Jeff and Helena have sought out public input and greatly considered their neighbors through the many rounds of alterations to their Project plans, carefully developing a building that will contribute to the Fisherman s Wharf neighborhood. In a continuation of that spirit, the Sears have now presented revised elevator penthouse plans to reduce the penthouse to the absolute minimum necessary for an elevator to access the roof. Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny this Jurisdiction Request and allow the Project to move forward. Very truly yours, REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP Jody Knight Attorneys for the Property Owners /Jurisdiction Request/LTR-721 Beach St. BOA brief

35 President Lazarus and Commissioners San Francisco Board of Appeals August 31, 2015 Page 7 cc: Darryl Honda, Vice President Commissioner Frank Fung Commissioner Rick Swig Commissioner Bobbie Wilson Cynthia Goldstein, Board of Appeals /Jurisdiction Request/LTR-721 Beach St. BOA brief

36 EXHIBIT A

37 GEISZLER ARCHITECTS SK-57A

38

39

40 1 SK-57D 2 SK-57D GEISZLER ARCHITECTS SK-57D