Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 11, 2012 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT

1:00 pm
effects from new shadows on prop k protective parks would not be allowed unless these shadows are found to be insignificant which gives discretion to park and rec commissions and planning commissions to ruse discretion as -- use discretion as we have significantly, and we had beneficial projects, i think it was affordable housing. that's just a discretionary call, and even if the memo of 1987 gives clear abilities even though 0 budgets were set for future joint sessions to raise these budgets and that's what's before us today. i want to make a motion, but before that, two things, i don't know if it's appropriate now, i know that commissioner wu had asked for there to be a
1:01 pm
resolution on the calendar next week. i don't know if we can -- >> [inaudible]. >> that will not be part of your motion, that will be for next -- >> it's not part of the motion. >> we have agreed to add that to next week. >> we don't have anymore meeting, i believe we also wanted to calendar consideration of discussion for the secretary search. >> i have already added that. >> i just wanted to make sure it was added on that. >> no, it's already there. >> so, that being said, i'm going to make a motion for the planning commission and i think we have to take these separately if i'm not mistaken, to amend section 295, implementation memo adopted in 1989 to raise the cumulative shadow limits on certain properties, and i don't have to go through them i don't think in our resolution, that could
1:02 pm
be shadowed by development pursuant to the transit district plan with appropriate language that has been suggested and agreed to by the city attorney as protections for that usage by those, and number 2, to incorporate additional quantitative criteria for the 9 parks, the 7 listed park plus two additional parks that describe the quantity coverage duration, areas, times of day, times of year of the shadows and if we can do this jointly, also adopt findings under ceqa. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, there's been -- go ahead. >> i'm sorry, i was going to make a technical corrections and read the comments into the record. >> this is just a comment. there's been discussion of the amount of new open space that's going to be provided by virtue
1:03 pm
of our approving -- well, they'll be provided anyway whether we approve this or not, the argument's being made that one of the reasons that we should approve this is because there will be additional open space, back in 1984, there was a similar issue on a singular project, i don't know what it was, but there is an opinion that was written at that time that says it was not intended to allow developers to shadow existing parks by virtue of their offer to fund and pay for expanded park site and its development. this interpretation is supported by the title of the ordinance, park shadow ban, and the ballot summary describing the ordinance, etc., etc., anyways, so apparently there has already been a city attorney's opinion that the project that offers to give additional open space to the city in exchange for shadowing
1:04 pm
existing parks is a no, no. >> city attorney, did you want to clarify comments on the motion? >> yes, john from the city attorney's office. the planning department handed out a sort of technical that was added to the resolution and i wanted to point out a few additional changes to that and i prepared some language to address commissioner borden's concern, so on staff -- the additional memorandum that you received, the technical corrections, on page 3, there's a paragraph that should read, the planning commission and recreation and park commission have heard and considered testimony presented at the public hearing and have further considered the written materials and oral testimony and it continues, it's changing the verb, and then there's a
1:05 pm
correction on page 4, therefore reviewing the materials and having heard all the testimony and arguments, the commissions find, conclude and resolve as follows, so those are sort of minor technical things in response to commissioner borden, the second resolved clause, i would suggest adding language as follows, and this is the clause that begins the increase in the acl's specified by this resolution are limited to the limited general shadows accumulative by the new shadows within the transit center district plan as identified in the eir prepared for the plan, this would be additional added language, and would not be available for buildings outside of the plan. >> thank you, and i accept the
1:06 pm
previous arata, the city attorney, that you've haed and also the language to reflect the concern of commissioner borden. >> commissioner hillis? >> i'm supportive of that motion and the amendment, i would even want to put in parenthetical how much of that acl is related to transbay but i'm okay as it is, but just a point on why i think it's appropriate to do this when we're doing the planning, if you look at the market octavia plan where we didn't look at shadow impacts and increase the limits, we've got this odd dynamic happening where we built a park, phase green, in that plan, we contemplated development adjacent to that park in the former octavia parcels but they're not allowed to be built unless we have this joipt hearing and approve this budget, i think this makes a ton of sense to approve these
1:07 pm
limits when we're approving the plan, so the plan has some certainty in getting implemented, so i'm very supportive of the motion. >> president buell. >> i have a couple of questions and some comments. i guess the first question is i received a letter today from the telegraph hills dwelling association and an action by our commission to increase absolute cumulative limits to accommodate these significant impacts is inconsistent with the plans of the eir and will be in violation of 295, i want the city attorney to weigh in on that, i don't want to be in violation of those sections. >> john from the city attorney's office, if i could have a minute to review the letter which i just received
1:08 pm
and then i could respond to it. >> great, thank you, then let me ask staff for a minute and this would be the joint powers group, the rec and park department has a genuine concern about what ultimately happens with the open space and recreation facilities in the project. i know you can't answer that definitively today, i know we've had outside conversations about it, but i would like the record to reflect, if you can arrive at any conclusions about your recommendations about the disposition of those properties, you would come before our commission with that information. >> commissioner john ram with the planning department, we would certainly be happy to do that and we'll certainly have many discussion ins the disposition of those property ins the years to come. >> thank you very much, let me just make a couple of observations, i'm encouraged by the fact that a long planning
1:09 pm
process that had some very sound reasoning behind it has met with so much community support and i mean by that the environmental implications of what we're doing. i was pleased at the beginning of the presentation to see how many thousands of tons of carbon would be saved by this kind of planning and putting jobs in transit and housing in some proximity to itself. i'm singing to the choir here, but the idea of seeing any real fundamental change in bringing to a level of 350 parts per billion carbon in the atmosphere is going to come primarily by conservation and changing the way we live, whether we do lots of solar or lots of wind or evolve to nuclear, whatever else happens, the only thing we can do is what we can do here, expecting the federal government or even the state to answer this problem has become increasingly problematic, so acting locally and doing something about it is
1:10 pm
just enormously important, so at the expense of some, what i think are minimal impacts on parks, and i really love the work you did about the use in those parks because that's enormously helpful to us, i think that the general outcome of this is a very, very positive message to everybody. having said that, i share the concern that you're proposing lifting the allocations based on maximum height and bulk of these other buildings, but i asked the question, what happens when you come in with specific designs and they may be less than maximum, can we reduce the number? can we reduce the allocation to reflect the real design? >> joshua switzky, planning staff, you would only be allocating the amount necessary for any individual projects, and as the proposed amend *f amendments to the motion would not let buildings outside the
1:11 pm
plan area avail of those unused allocations, so those two scenarios, the unused allocation goes unused forever or the commission could act to reduce the allocations again in the future if there was a real concern about unused allocation. >> i think that concern was expressed today and so i think it's a real one. and i think it actually ends up rewarding development that follows the path of what's been done here and really seriously looking long term on how and when we want growth and what we can do to get it. it doesn't need to be done today but it needs to be done as we jointly and individually look at projects and impacts on parks. >> john from the city attorney's office, i've had a chance to review the letter and i would just like to make a few
1:12 pm
points about that. the first is that the letter sort of co-mingles what are common terms that are used both in the environmental analysis and ceqa process as well as in section 295, this is something the commissions grapple with. every time a shadow decision comes before it, but the terms of what's considered significant and insignificant under ceqa or adverse impacts under ceqa are different decisions, different analysis, different factors come into play. when those sixes are decisions are made in the process of 295 analysis prop k, so i wanted to point that out. i think the staff memo that you received does touch on this briefly as well. i did also want to point out
1:13 pm
that commissioner sugaya raised another city attorney opinion, i just wanted to point out that addressed sort of a different question than the issue that is are before you today, so i don't think that that has bear -- bearing on today's decision, but i wanted to point out something about the 1989 memo that are raised in this letter and raised another city attorney opinion on the very issue that's before you. so, your action today does not violate the charter in any way, it doesn't violate prop k in any way, it doesn't violate section 295, and i think the staff presented in the beginning of the hearing how we got do the point we have with what we refer to as the 1989 memo which was an out growth of
1:14 pm
prop k and the authority vested in these two commissions to think about shadowing and parks in san francisco and to implement the intent of the voters and what the commissions elected to do in 1989 is adopt a memo that looked at certain parks, it created criteria, it created certain budget's limits of new shadowing on some of those parks and imposed on others said the no new shadow would be allowed, that was something -- prop k didn't spell that out to you, that was something that you decided as commissioners on how to implement prop k. you could have come up with an entirely different method, that's what you come up with, it's not set in stone, it's something that's flexible like the question that you raised earlier of how do you define
1:15 pm
what's an adverse impact under prop k, those are questions and sixes that are left to the authority of the commission to decide case by case, you could adopt definitions, you haven't done so, you have left the flexibility as you go through the future to decide them as you see fit. so, in the same way that under the 1989 memo, you created criteria in the first place, you have the ability to change those criteria, and i want to read to you from a memo that the city attorney prepared, a public memo and i think i presented this to the planning commission when you consider the transit district center plan in may and this goes to the question of setting the limits that you've set, the acl's for certain parks and changing them, the original
1:16 pm
careful cumulative limit and qualitative factors may prove sufficient, this is in reference to the 1989 memo, however, if new information and experience prove that the criteria are unnecessarily restrictive, or are in effective to protect parks from shadow or shading, then as commissioners have the implied necessary power and indeed a duty to change them. that clearly recognizes that the commissions have the ability to restrict at any time those parks that have shadow, they could allow for less if that's what their determination or they could allow for more when they think about the city and they think about the prop k and balance that in your decision-making. >> thank you. >> planning commissioners, there's a motion on the floor for approval, the motion has
1:17 pm
been amended by the request of commissioner borden and it's been clarified by deputy city attorney, john mall march, he read into the regard, grammatical change tos the resolution on page 3 and page 4 and he read into the record some language to address the concerns offered by commissioner borden that basically states that the increased limits could not be used by projects outside the planned area, on that motion for the planning commission only, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> borden? >> hao*i. >> hillis? >> commission cheerer moore? >> no. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> the commissioner passed 5-2 with commissioners sugaya and more voted against. it also was to adopt ceqa
1:18 pm
findings. >> recreation and park commission. >> yes, i would like to make a motion on attachment 7 and i would like to read it into the record. joint resolution with the planning commission to amend the section 295 implementation [inaudible] adopted in 1989 to one raise the absolute cumulative shadow limits on 7 park properties, union square, st. mary's square, portsmouth square, maritime plaza, willie woo woo wong playground and boeddeker park, and two, incorporate additional quantitative criteria for 9 parks, the previously listed 7 parks plus woh hei yuen park that describe the quantity coverage area sdraition times of time and days of year of new shadows and to adopt
1:19 pm
fiemdbacker findings under the environmental quality act with the amendment that i would ask the city attorney to read in. >> certainly, deputy city attorney, so the amendment would be the same amendment made by the planning commission, it would be on page 7 of attachment 7, and it would be on the first be it further resolved clause, at the end of that clause, the following would be added, and would not be available for buildings outside the plan, so the entire clause, be it further resolved, the increases in the acl specified by this resolution are limit today the general shadow profile tos the cumulative new shadows that could be cast within the central plan as define ined the eir defined for the plan and would not be available for buildings outside the plan. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded, all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed?
1:20 pm
hearing none, it's unanimous. >> commissioners, we now need a motion for item number 2. >> i will make a motion to approve attachment 8 which is adopting findings to one recommend the planning commission that the net new shadow from the proposed project at 101 first street will not have an impact on union's square, mary's park square,..[reading].. and boeddeker card as required by section 295, the sunshine ordinance to allocate net new shadow at 101 first street at union square, st. mary's square, portsmouth square and adopt the findings. >> moved and seconded, all
1:21 pm
those in favor? >> aye. >> aye. opposed, hearing none, it's unanimous. thank you. >> there being no further business before the joint bodies. >> we would entertain a motion to adjourn. >> moved. >> seconded. >> all moved and seconded on our side, so moved. >> so moved. >> second. >> meeting adjourned. >> thank you.
1:22 pm
1:23 pm
1:24 pm
1:25 pm
1:26 pm
1:27 pm
>> the question when i started 11 years ago when i started doing resolution work is can anything be presented on a really low resolution device where it is potentially a digital image? can anything be presented that way? or will it feel cold and electronic? >> the imagery will change. there will be four different sets. it is a two dimensional image. it is stretched out into three dimensions. the device is part of the
1:28 pm
experience. you cannot experience the image without the device as being part of what you are seeing. whereas with the tv you end up ignoring it. i make gallery work more self and budget and public art work where i have to drop this of indulgence and think about how people will respond. and one of the things i was interested in the work and also a little fearful of, it is not until you get to the first and second floor were the work is recognizable as an image. it is an exploration and perception is what it is. what are you seeing when you look at this image? one of the things that happens with really low resolution
1:29 pm
images like this one is you never get the details, so it is always kind of pulling you in kind of thing. you can keep watching it. i think this work is kind of experience in a more analytical way. in other words, we look at an image and there is an alice going on. -- and there is an analysis going on.