tv [untitled] December 4, 2012 3:00am-3:30am PST
eliminate the, you know, we can go ahead and eliminate the minimum and, you know, my amendment -- >> i don't support the amendment to my motion. if you want to make a substitute motion, you can. i don't support the amendment. >> yeah, i can make a substitute motion. it would be to allow, you know, parking as a right up to 1 to 1. put that out there for what it's worth. >> commissioners, we have a motion with a second. without the maker of the motion, second the amendment, we should take the matter of the first motion. and if that fails, we can proceed with a substitute motion. >> commissioner moore? >> i am very glad to see this legislation. i think the transformative qualities of streetscape improvements have really completely transformed the district.
the second tier buildings behind it, new housing, the improvement of the dmv parking area with new landscaping, all the thing to be improved are kind of gelling to make this street a concentrated new main street, kind of neighborhood main street. and i'm delighted that the legislation is sensitive to the small scale buildings, to the age of the buildings, to the type of mixed uses and to the kind of specific signature of neighborhood commercial district which is very different from any of the others. and as i think the beauty of san francisco here, i'm very pleased to see the small business commission actually rising to the board of supervisors and copying us to their very unanimous support of what's in front of us. so, i am delighted to just support it as it stands. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm also supportive of the legislation. but you have a question on the third recommendation, which is -- has to do with displacing
existing residents. the way it was before was that there could never have been a residential unit there, but in the new code it will be no existing residential unit. so, at the time. is that consistent with the way the code treats that provision in other ncds, this notion of unit at the time versus the past? >> i think this is an unusual provision. i'm not sure that it's been adopted in other ncds. this is particularly crafted for this. it came about because of a brewery that wanted to establish in a garage on divisadero street and they couldn't operate on the second floor. so, they wanted to be able to allow them to expand to the second floor. there is also a concern that they don't want to encourage commercial uses on the second
floor and displace residential units. so, that's why they put that in there as a caveat. >> that's my concern also. i'm okay with the way i think that the planning department has recommended to modify t but i just want to make sure we're not creating some sort of incentive where you would keep the residential unit vacant somehow convert it and then rent it out. >> there is a very robust process to get rid of a residential unit in our planning code. so, staff feels very comfortable that something like that wouldn't happen just because they don't rent it out doesn't mean the use goes away. it still remains a residential unit. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i very much appreciate commissioner wu's comment because that was one of the reasons why i strongly supported the extension or continuance of the fillmore district where we have a lot of residential very critical nature, and i think that needs to be addressed more clearly. and i'm glad that we are recognizing it in the way that you did. thank you. >> commissioner antonini.
>> i think aside from the parking which i spoke to, the rest of the legislation is well written and it's well done. but i won't be able to support it based upon that part of it. >> commissioners, on the motion to adopt a resolution recommending with modifications as proposed by staff, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. >> the commission is going to take a short break and we will come back. >>please stand by; meeting in recess like to welcome everybody back to san francisco's planning commission hearing for november 29, 2012. i'd like to remind members investment audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar for the
benefit of the public item 15 has been continued which places you under item 16, case no. 2003.0527u, 1000 16th street (daggett park) in-kind agreement. >> good afternoon, commissioners, steve [speaker not understood], department staff. i'm please today present to you an in-kind agreement for 16th street daggett park. it is the mile steyn towards a new park in ship place square [speaker not understood]. this agreement reflects over a year in coordination and collaboration between the city, the developer and the community including the planning department's plan implementation team, office of economic and work force development, the port, department of public works, department of real estate, recreation and park department, the arts commission, and mta. if i can get the overhead, please, i'd like to first orient everyone as to the site. so, this patch of land you may be familiar with the
intersection of 16th and seventh is the area of the future daggett park and its affiliated development. the new park will be located along the daggett street right-of-way which is currently an unimproved patch of land at the intersection of 16th and seventh as i said. this area here. through the in-kind agreement the new park will be built by archstone [speaker not understood]. the project includes approximately 470 units of rental housing accompanying floor retail and [speaker not understood] by the planning commission in july of 2011. so, the next overhead show is the project orientation. see the park in the middle along the public right-of-way and the development along the private parcels. the project is projected to owe the city $4.2 million in eastern neighborhoods infrastructure impact fees. archstone is seeking a waiver today of 1.88 million of those fees in return for constructing this park. the construction of the park would fulfill the vision of the
showplace square at potrero plan policy 5.1.1 calls for the city to identify opportunities to create new public parks and open spaces and provide at least one new public park or open space serving ship place and potrero. the eastern neighborhoods process identified the creation of a new park in the showplace square as an eastern neighborhoods priority project. the parka long daggett street right-of-way was identified in 2009. ship showplace square plan. the advise have i committee identified the daggett park site as a top priest for new open space in the show place area, voted unanimously in july of 2011 to support the creation of a new park at this location. the proposed park would be .88 acres in size, about half the size of southpark and substantially larger than patricia's green in hayes valley. include large air lawn areas for recreation and gathering,
ample seating opportunities dispersed throughout the park, architectural features that double as play area, [speaker not understood] american with disability act and mayor's office of disability. fenced off dog run, public art piece selected through a process facilitated by the arts commission, easing welcoming access [speaker not understood] so the clearly reads a a public park. [speaker not understood] stormwater garden and drought resistant trees and landscaping. now i'll show you a couple more images of the park. this is kind of an area perspective maybe here are seagulls looking down the park towards the freeway. here's one more image you would see from 16th street, housing to the right, to the left, and the freeway behind it. so, to talk about the value of this in-kind agreement.
improvements are cal claythved at over $3.72 million, well over the 1.88 million waiver asked for in the in kind agreement. the city is so enthusectiontion enthusiastic is we can leverage the money archstone would otherwise have to spend improving the right-of-way. [speaker not understood]. they are proposing to gift over a million dollars of improvements to the city. this gift would occur as a separate agreement through the board of supervisors. as part of this in kind agreement archstone is also proposing to maintain the park in perpetuity. therefore there will be no subsequent costs to the city for this park. the recent developer is willing to convey so much value to the city they see their ability to rent the adjacent development. this isn't meant to be a private park. we work closely with the design team, park team, to make sure it looks and feels public based on signage, visibility and design. is [speaker not understood]
already embedded in our community. let's talk about the process. the approval of this in kind agreement is only one aspect of completing the proposed park. other elements acquiring the land from the port of san francisco, entering into a legal agreement to receive the gift of the park improvements from the project sponsor, phase iii of the civic design review process, the completion of an operations and maintenance plan with the project sponsor. completing this in kind agreement will enable us to finalize those within the next couple of months. in time to meet the construction schedule. based on their schedule both the park and surrounding development would be completed in mid 2014. at that time the park built with further requirements of the legal agreements made between the city and the project sponsor. now talk about the required commission action. to complete this in kind agreement requires the planning commission to approve an impact fee waiver of 1.88 million dollars for the in kind improvements. there are certain thresholds daggett park must meet to
approve the inkind agreement. i'll walk through the thresholds and how we believe the park meets the threshold. it must be eligible for an in kind agreement. to be eligible for an in kind agreement the proposed project must meet the following three requirements. first fulfill community improvements. second, infrastructure type is identified in the fee ordinance and third, the expenditure category for the infrastructure type has not been exhausted. so, the proposed daggett park meets all three requirements as follows. as mentioned before, the showplace square open space plan -- excuse me, area plan calls for the city to identify opportunities to create new parks in this area. the creation of daggett park would fulfill that goal. for the eastern neighborhoods plan, parks are a type of infrastructure for which impact fees can be spent. timely, the park's expenditure category has over $1.88 million in it. next proposed improvements must be a priority. as discussed before the creation of park in showplace
square area is to showcase the area plan. also building a new park in showplace square is also a priority project per the eastern neighborhoods infrastructure prioritization memorandum of understanding completed in january of 2009. in the eastern neighborhoods we are required by law to spend 80% of our impact fees on these priority projects so this project helps us fulfill that legal obligation. finally the project must be recommended as discussed before, the proposed project was supported by 2009 showplace square open space plan. it was supported by a community meeting held in early 2011. it was unanimously supported by the eastern neighborhoods citizens have iery committee in july 2011. the proposed project has been reviewed and supported by member city agencies including department of public works, the port, park and recreation, arts commission, park and mission civic design review and office of economic work force and development. based on the community support, supported by other agencies and excellent return on value to the city and public the planning department recommends approval of this in kind agreement. thank you.
>> is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, isabelle wade. i wanted to speak in favor of this project. i'm actually really excited to hear about it. i'm here for another reason today. but i was part of the eastern neighborhoods planning process in my capacity as executive director of neighborhood [speaker not understood] council and also being being in the subsequent open space work group that steve put together because those of us in the eastern neighborhoods planning process felt there wasn't enough emphasis about open space in the plans. and even in the work group we struggled so hard to find places to make parks or open space. i think this kind of a project is increasingly going to be the way the city gets open space and parks in our new neighborhoods.
and i think this looks like an excellent design that is open to the public and conveys that it's a public park. and i just want to encourage you to look at other projects in the future for this very reason to see if there's ways we can squeeze in more parks and open space. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment portion is closed. commissioner borden. >> hi. i think this is a great project. i just wanted staff to go over this. it was a little confusing. i know there are overall -- they're on the hook for fees for 4.2 million. then there is the 1.88 million that we're approving and then i guess there is another gift. is that part of the -- >> they write a check for the difference of the 4.2 million and 1.88 million. >> what is the gift, is that something different? >> the gift is -- what they're
proposing to build is worth $3.7 million, right. we're only giving the waiver for 1.88. so, the city by law to receive that kind of value -- they need to legally take it as a gift. that is a good way to legally structure so everyone is kind of legally obligate today provide what they have promised as well. >> but then there is another layer. it sounds like we also need to buy this land from ourselves. * obligated to so, thatses what another thing confusing to me. we have to find additional money to actually buy this land from ourselves? >> um-hm. we've been working internally, not necessarily in kind agreement, but a separate process going on between representatives from the mayor's office who are here today if you want to speak about this as well as the port. and try and negotiate what is the value of this land. it's been a tricky proposition because it's public right-of-way. interesting the port owns this land but this is the vestiges of mission bay. so, within the port trust. so, for them to -- we can
theoretically build the park on t but it's just cleaner to not have the port own the land any more. the city ons the right-of-way. dpw gets to own the street right-of-way, but the port owns underneath. we're in the process of appraising the value of the land as open space whereas publicly owned land with the open space designation which basically means you can't build on it, a building, and getting the [speaker not understood]. and then we have a different strategies we're trying to figure out how to negotiate with the port about how to convey that money to them. but they've already shown their willingness to go through the process, do the appraisal, to take the money over time to talk about different means to receive the money. that is a separate conversation. >> there is no availability -- i know we just passed the park bond or park recreation bond. i don't know if any of the funds there were not earmarked in a way they could be used for this project. do we know? >> i'm not sure actually. i feel like we're turning over many different financing stones and even laying the [speaker
not understood] to take the lead on that. and everyone kind of feels confident with this we'll get done. it just hasn't been done before this in kind agreement was done because we want the timing of this presentation, we want to get that done first. the timing of this presentation was moved up because archstone is now ready to build and they need to go out and get the financing for this project. and we wanted to show the commitment of the city, hey, we want this park. it's a a great value for us. then they can get their funders to support it as well. that is why we timed it as such. >> it is good for us all to know. because we haven't seen it. perfect. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i had a few questions. i think this is really a good project in its concept, a wonderful one. i'm very ken urged to hear project sponsor will be doing the maintenance also in the future. so, one would assume they will keep it well maintained because they have an interest in making it attractive for theirors.
-- rentors. or will they have security or will it be up to sfpd? >> we have to develop an operations and maintenance plan for this. i'm sure it will be part of the consideration. i know there will be security. we haven't determined what that process will be yet. >> that can be worked out. the other thing is you spoke a little bit about the landscaping and you mentioned there will be these lawns which one would assume they will have the flexibility to put in what they want to do and it would be the kind of grass you can actually sit on because the city has been putting a lot of this bent grass in that they don't mow to save a little bit of water and you can't walk on it and ruin it. i'm assuming it will be able for anyone in the public who wants to actually sit there or walk on it or kick a frisbee, throw a frisbee around, they can do it. >> i would hope so. we've been to the civic design committee, arts commission, that has people who -- there's landscapers and architects on this committee and asked the questions. i remember back in february we
had quite a greueling session with them going through specific trees and maintenance programs and the grass and all that stuff. so, i feel they approved it unanimously. i feel they are supportive of the landscaping plan. >> i'm hoping there is enough flexibility to make it attractive. the same goes with the trees. all this drought resistance stuff often looks dry and unattractive. if they want to put something in that takes a little bit more water and looks a little better, it's kind of their dime, i would think. so, i would hope they've got that flexibility. okay, thanks. >> commissioner hillis. >> just back to this question on value. so, the port land, the city is going to pay the port, are we going to pay out of the remainder of the impact fees? >> no. >> where is that funding going to can you have from? >> that's part of the conversation [speaker not understood] wants to speak about this. thanks. >> if i may, pam drew from the office of economic and work force development. so, just to clarify, the purpose of the park purchase is actually a mechanism under
state law. it currently is subject to the public trust and in order to remove the trust under senate bill 815, we need to provide the port with fair market value. we're confident, because the appraisal instructions require the appraiser to appraise the parcel with open space. and as a park, that the value of that appraisal will come back relatively low. the port is being very flexible, agreeing to accept payment over time and other -- >> you don't expect the payment to be much. the park builds open space on trust land already. >> they do. there was essentially a bit of a catch-22 because the parcel is not near water. it wasn't a regional access. >> can we build a [inaudible]? [laughter] >> they have consulted with outside counsel in hopes of finding this parcel was in compliance with the trust use. that led to a dead end. >> you expect the value to be pretty low.
>> very low. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm glad the project is coming forward and i very much appreciate commissioner antonini's questions about the grass. i would agree with him that the drought resistant trees offer [speaker not understood] being in the drought or dry instead of those kind of trees which help us also with sun and wind and protection of the adjacent unit which is energy efficiency. the one thing i would like to put a question mark to is that light green area astroturf for dogs. where did that come from? it is astroturf, artificial grass for dogs. >> it will be something that will be easy to clean, permeable, but easy to clean.
>> i haven't seen the stuff you're talking about. i'm not very happy about that being a feature of public open spaces, dogs, people or both of them. we should carefully look at that as nothing we really want to be associated with. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, [speaker not understood], could you refresh my memory when we looked at this originally in terms of development plan, there is a street in here. >> right. >> and could you -- it doesn't seem like on the face of it that that's necessary since the intersections's just a little bit away. but this is mainly for access to the buildings? >> it's access for the buildings. also 7th and 16th don't have parking, street parking at that location. it is a very tight intersection. and, so, there is going to be this space -- the space is going to be activated with restaurants and other retail spaces. so, there's very little way to
access those public uses or for people to have public use of the park. we were supportive of having this street as a way to both access the building and the uses and the park. that being said, the street is designed kind of in a [speaker not understood] style where it's flush with the right-of-way. it's very clearly -- meant to be paved and looked and designed not as a normal street. we want 99% of the traffic and no through traffic to come through here. only people will be going 5 or 10 miles an hour to drop off people and to park in those spots. >> okay. any additional comment? commissioner moore. >> not hearing any additional comment, i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> second. [speaker not understood]. >> commissioners, on that motion to approve, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis?
>> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. >> just a quick announcement. a little bit of unusual calendar today. we have a time certain item at 3 o'clock. we're going to take the next item and then after that hear the 3 o'clock. i think it's item number 17, thank you. so, the next one tehama, please. >> commissioners, before you are items 17 a and b, for case numbers 2008.0801e, x and v, 41 tehama street, request for determination of compliance and variance. >> good afternoon, president fong and member of the commission. my name is [speaker not understood]. if i could have the laptop screen on the overhead, please. the request before you today is
for several actions regarding the project at 41 tehama street which would construct a 31 story building reaching a roof height of approximately 318 feet. the mechanical enclosure reaching a height of 342 feet. it contains 3 25 dwelling units, 700 square feet of retail space, 2 41 off-street parking spaces, and a plaza and mid-block open space -- sorry, mid-block connection to the [speaker not understood] park. the project site is located within the transit center district plan area. the city adopted a plan and implementing ordinances in august of 2012. the plan seems to address issues of regional sustainability and traffic congestion by focusing growth within an intense urban context in an area with transit services. the project is located two blocks south of the transit center which is currently under construction and will accommodate local and inter city bus service as well as caltrain and future high-speed
rail service. other goals of the plan include scoping the downtown skyline and resting [speaker not understood] and expanding protection of historic resources. the exhibit up on the screen now illustrates the next point of heights in the plan area. adoption of the plan did include height reclassification, numerous parcels in the area to increase height limits. transbay tower which you previously approved for the height limit of 1,000 feet, top of the building shown here. several other nearby heights ranging from 600 to 850 feet. the subject property was reclassified as well from the previous 200 foot limit to 360 height limit. proposed project shown in the lower left of this exhibit. the remainder of the buildings are generally mapping studies, not necessarily specific building designs, but just showing heights of other parcels in the plan area. so, the project sponsor will give a detailed presentation regarding the design of this project but i'd like to focus on a number of the policy and regulatory issues of the
project. the first is the issue of exceptions under planning code section 309. the code allows the project to seek exceptions from strict compliance with certain sections of the code providing that this commission make specific findings. this project requests exceptions regarding the separation of towers, rear yard, reduction of ground level wind currents and bulk requirements. compliance for the criteria of each section is in the draft 309 in your packet and i'd be happy to discuss any of these specifics in detail. however, to summarize, staff believes that the requested exceptions are warranted and meet the criteria of the code. in addition, the project requests variances from the requirements of the code that will be considered today by the zoning administrator. first the width of the parking loading entry to exceed the 20 foot limitation of the code. second, the units on the south side of the building do not meet code requirements for exposure onto an open area situated within the property itself although the units do
face the oscar park to the south. as i mentioned, the sponsor will describe the detail design and program featureses of the project but i'd like to introduce two specific items. first, the project includes a large plaza at the western portion of the site which would include landscaping, fixed and movable seating, and adjacent retail services on the ground floor. the plaza features fluid physical connections to the future oscar park which will be situated to the south. a portion of this area will satisfy code requirements for mid-block crossing for visitors wish totionv travel between oscar park and tehama street. although the plaza is not fenced, visitors would be able to access the plaza. it does not require open space under the code aside from the 20 foot wide mid-block connection that i described. there are several conditions of approval included in the draft 309 section referencing required open space under planning code section 138. should the commission choose to approve the project, staff
would ask those conditions be deleted as they do not apply. another issue i'd like to highlight is public art. include works of art consisting -- i'm sorry, costing an amount equal to 1% of the construction cost for the building object must contribute an in kind amount to public trust fund. the sponsor has creative approaches to satisfying this section. in part the requirement would be met through the provision of a permitted work of art to be displayed within the plaza. but the sponsor has also proposed the ground floor art space adjacent could be used to satisfy these requirements. this space could host exhibitions, artist and residency programs artists would be on-site and displayed in an adjacent plaza. so, in order for this project to proceed, the commission must determine that the project complies with planning code section 309 granted with the exco