tv [untitled] November 7, 2013 1:30pm-2:01pm PST
disapprove should a site not be found it doesn't change the nature of the vote it changed the time and a hopefully provides additionally leverage or at&t to find another site based on our request. i'm mindful of the fact you know the staff on the commission itself has been inconsistent in the message we've delivered and i think it's important we talk about the facilitates and this is going to be more and more of an issue and we need to work with the staff to come up with guidelines maybe in conjunction with the ap c around the facilitates but it's totally
consistent to negotiate this. i was going to made another motion so commissioner moore made her motion so i'll wait >> commissioner borden s if that is to continue the motion it takes precedence. >> i think we said january was the date. >> okay. >> would need to be january 16th or the 23rd commissioner. >> 23rd is better it gives more time. >> very good. >> commissioner do you have a question? >> commissioner. >> yeah. i intooirl agree the action to approve is still on the calendar and that would be
our first order of business on the 23rd and maybe a champion motion or the next week and we'd have a lot more information at our hands and again as commissioner borden pointed out at&t will be in a better position they can explain it to potential people who may allow lease space to put their antennas on. i'm in favor of a motion to continue >> commissioner ellis. you can't be back here in january for another site. i think - i don't think we've
given bad information at&t struggles with that and wire like the 1700 unit street. we should move and i'm happy to look at all the sites but move to vote on the item >> just for clarity it's not impossible for them to find another site but unlikely. >> if there's nothing further there is a motion to continue this to january 23rdrdrd. >> (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 3. commissioners then we continue
on your rig calendar on item 11. at 1634 pine street public hearing on draft environmental report. please note that the comments will be accepted at the planning depth. >> good afternoon. i'm jeanie of the environmental planning section of the planning department. this is a hearing to receive comments for case no. 2011 the 1634 pine street project. comments will be transcribed and the responses to comments will respond to all written and oral k3478z. staff is not here to answer comments today. today's hearing is not to
consider approve or disapproveal of the project that will follow the final eir certification. comments should be directed to the adequacy are xherlts should speak clearly and directly so the court reporter can get a clear transcript. also people should spell their names clearly so they can receive a transcript. we'll also take comments by planning commission. the comment period banking began on october 3rd and extends through november 18th. the draft was printed on october 16th, the commission subsequentially submitted
comments and a additional copies of this letter are available. i'd like to know the draft eir the project would include 91 bicycle parking garage space and now has class 1 and 2 bike spaces. the project sponsor has agreed to this. this concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. opening it up for public comment. i have two cards (calling names) >> thank you. my name is michael i live at 1777 pine street within a block of the project.
i've. or live there since 1996. i want to reiterate what other people have said this is a neighborhood and everybody i've spoemg to say naums and very, very strongly against this project. one block away on bush and franklin a 13 story tower is being erected. below van ness more towers are constructed. the 1 hundred and thirty foot towers directly across from a senior living center is in the and the suffering and the noise of that is unconscionable. this has been a quiet tranquil and intimate neighborhood. we feel strongly you're
basically being violated it's a great sentiment among us we're not obey heard or seen. i belong to no political group but i have to tell you something that changed my mind happened at the 7:00 a.m. i heard like a bomb go off. on the corner of pine and golf a boy had been hit by a car going at the tremendous rate of speed. he died and the mother and sister were injured. that type of traffic never took place about on pine street. now day and night it's beginning around 4:00 a.m. to propose what you're proposing here and require a garage with 2
hundred and 35 more cars and have all this construction going on around us is one more attack on the fiber of san francisco. this is why we feel dead. we love this city. we don't want to turn it into a place for the rich it's notes hong kong it's san francisco full of beauty and soul and heart. everybody i've talked about is adamantly against this project. at least cut it down and make it smaller. at the for your attention. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm desiree smith and a project manager for the architecture
heritage. we have a few comments and i want to pouted that our comments are for the accuracy on cultural resources. as you you know the project is the auto shop district. it's in van ness to support the structures. it was one of the most automobile influential all centers. the auto shops districts was the only example that comprised more than 2 auto related buildings standing adjacent near or on the van necessary corridor. we obtain to this the historic buildings will be demolished and construction boo will be over
that whemd. there are no setbacks to the historic sites. we agree that the project would have adverse demolition and demolition of most of the buildings on the project site two of which are eligible for the california registry of historic buildings. we agree that implementation of litigation measures would not adequately compensate for the lack of the resources. my other eir adequately describes the meaningful objectives. in particular we feel that the planning department is revise the project objectives.
this could be modified by shift the lot. the full presentation van ness as a shared context therefore slinking it to 8 floors. we believe it should be showing more adequately 13 stories. this modification would allow a modification to there the greater retention of the district. we'll also be smiment a comment letter to the planning department to reiterate those thank you. any further public comment >> hello, i'm patricia. i live at 1777 pine street which
is impartial up the block from this development. i have been looking at the draft eir and the number of projects in my neighborhood and a become very interested in the statistics that were given as far as the l o s for the intersections. in comparing the new ones most of them had 3 intersections in common. it was very interesting how widely the numbers were from a c to a e. so i think there's something wrong with the reliability of that status. people in this neighborhoods are very concerned about traffic.
very concerned. we have so many injuries there. i've been pushing to get changes. we've gotten some changes but people continue to get hit. so the number of cars he has with c pmc and the bus rapid transit their traffic analysis does not appear to take into account the fact that now that they're not going to allow the left turns from van ness that people are going to be using franklin to make the left-hand turns and that's pushing more traffic on franklin and goose. but now with the lack of the left-hand turn it's going to push more. those are residential areas. something need these needs to happen where people can look at
the status and fourth what's really adequate it goes all the way to go ahead lock. the project is dense they compare themselves to the highest projects and the building in the neighborhood. having no off street loading is going to be a problem it's on pine street and the minute things block traffic >> get the weaving in and out of traffic and the honking. it does a terrible job of preserving the landmark. i don't know how you think it make sense to put modern structures in the middle of a district they're not keeping the buildings together.
and cutting - >> thank you your time is up. >> any further public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i have a comment for staff 4r50shg9 the parking lot we're only analyzing 2 hundred and 45 parking places and having 2 hundred 62 units. so isn't there one to one requirement in this neighborhood for parking >> i'll have to look into that. >> okay. >> because if there say we obviously have to analyze the one to one parking. >> there is a conditional use authorization and will address any lack of parking that's required by code.
>> yeah, i'm saying the other way around. if the code dictates there be one to one parking >> uh-huh. >> i mean they can ask for less but which one would succumb you'd analysis the code compliant alternative and not a lessor alternative. >> thank you, commissioner for your comments. we will be receiving a transcript of the hearing and the questions you've proposed and we'll be writing to the document >> while i'm asking questions i'm trying to fidget i notice all the different alternatives. it prefers a small amount of the prehistoric buildings and i know
it's probably in here but how deep does that go >> i think we're only collecting comments today. >> okay. all right. fine. well, that's a question i want to know a little bit more detail on its probably in here but the daengs between the various alternatives the full preservation and i've read parts of it and it gives detail. commissioner borden arrest i want to associate myself with the partial alternative and the shifting stories to better preserve the buildings and also the future exploitation of a more genuine alternative to the
structures >> commissioner. >> i know no matter what is addressed with respect to - what am i trying to say. in the analysis of the proposed project not the alternatives i think the conclusion there are substantial adverse effects that can't be mitigated it's correct. there isn't a whole lot we can do in terms of preservation you know of those buildings if the proposed project moves ahead as it's designed. what i'd like to interject my belief it the facade and the retention of the that building
elevations it decreases the impact but it's still an adverse impact and i think when the project comes around to the commission it should eliminate those facades. that approach went out decades ago and is a preferred approach not anywhere. if you want to see one there are examples around san francisco on the barker project that retains the one warehouse front on greg. i think it looks terrible and does nothing to enhance the fact that was a historic building.
there's another one on its a retention of a corner piece with a high-rise around that. there are education or works that don't work at all. the preservation commission commented on the alternative that i think there should be consideration to increasing the story to 16 to better meet the sponsors program requirements should be looked at >> commissioner moore. >> i agree with the historic preservation comment on the draft eir. present a meaningful set of alternatives and that would go beyond facadeism >> would represent the towers
and fully preserve the entire 3 buildings. what the eir failed for me to do is give an overview and historic development pardons on the up sloping site which the project site is. the experience of driving up pine street is not one of driving through a canyon of opening used in the uphill preservation parks of fall houses and that's the beauty when i come out of the high-rise is basically move into the pacific heights. the eir fails to address where it intentionally goes up and i'd
like to also suggest that the lack of attention to the prehistoric buildings has to do with intentional negligent. that was pushed beback by the commission as insensitive to joining the seniors homes that was sensitively masked to have one comply with at van ness avenue plan and plan intent. it stepped back from pine street and left light and air for the lower floor dining room areas and the recreational programs. the swimming pool faces pine street and the eir doesn't properly address that nor discuss the change in qualities
of light within the residential units that will be seriously effected given that the project proposed in the eir has simplistic oversized residential blocks to say this project meets the objectives. i suggest the developers objectives shape what the san francisco need and the eir needs to do. so when the battle when it comes to continual approval to say it has been properly address. i think it should be more of a strong tower configuration and deals with the larger objectives that are recognized by buildings already there. the internal revenue as it stands fails to meet the larger
objectives. we're not designing islands we're designing context of already taller buildings to the south that should pep help determine what the analysis should be >> i'd like to add two areas i'm interested in the final eir. one it about that i had safety especially durable construction. it's a dense area construction is difficult around obviously around existing construction up during construction for pedestrians. the second is more detailed is the question about there's instructions to pay into the van necessary brt at a fair share how the the fair share
calculated? >> another area i agree with commissioner moore it's aided in the d i or on page 4a 21 and 22. the historic research impacts and most particularly the last one construction of an incapable building within the autobiography shop district. it's an issue that comes under the context of the eir because it deals with the preservation and impact and the impact of a building that has the context with the existing auto shops, you know, makes it even more of an impact if the knowledge had
more features like mastery or other features that make it more comparable it would be lesson a impact. whether you like it or not the buildings across the street have been built remedy century of the van ness area rather than being completely glass i didn't towers. someone know along that line should be included. comments and responses to make the two especially, if the new building would be weaved into what was to remain of the historic buildings as someone pouted it is a better context particularly on the pine street facade would help a lot
>> commissioner moore. i appreciate you mining the word pedestrian safety are i believe people exist onto the pine street further shows taking traffic out of san francisco and back downtown. pine is a dangerous center of the. but i'm monthly concerned about driving in that corridor. frequently the entire population of the assist care tries to walk to the corner of franklin and their encouraged to do it for experience. you'll often find yourselves
having to move slowly as they move across the intersection it's an there in traffic that need to be a serious responsibility for the eir to address >> thank you. >> commissioners if there's nothing further we'll move on to item 12. at the 1409 sutter street. a request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon karen planning department staff. it is a conditional use to convert a building from a private club at the 1409 within the mc zoning district. a principally you permitted
restaurants will be there a limited square feet and will require the limited use. the project will not will resolve any physical expansion. the department finds this proposal desirable. it's a historic zone known as the thomas project. the 189 though square feet building was used as a private club. the existing first two floors is the dining hall and other activity space for the club anybody's it's located on the first two levels and will be 95 hundred square feet in size and the hotel will be on the 3rd and fourth floors withob
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV2: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on