Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 16, 2014 9:00pm-9:31pm PDT

9:00 pm
being a fabulous place. finally, i like to call this the money shot where you're looking down 19th street you see the cranes at crane coffee park. the precedence poly i didn't park and manhattan the project on the right again, our emphasis is creating a simple high quality surface and the bleach presence this is in the co-sponsor did care and this is i think that's a high school showing you the material immaterial and the blaefrnz on the left this is the university of texas and on the right, of course, times square we're not looking for the jazzy of the times square and the other space
9:01 pm
that ime inspired us the the concrete polished treatment. and other examples around the country the p.s. one in new york and the industrial spaces and arts spaces. and, of course, that's fun to think about the enact active sculptures and the most interesting are the bottom left where we're going to be working with c m g the lead architect if you have any specific questions the architect is here. i'm going to fly through. the
9:02 pm
maintenance is described in your what this we have too high maintenance most important to pause on the budget. the additional crest we put before you and we've talked about the opportunity to return to the cac to ask for an additional $284,000 to catch up with the design process >> i thank you you're time is up. >> thank you. >> the commission may have questions let's open this up for public comment first, i have two cards. >> good afternoon, commissioners ben fry here. i look at this thing well, it's
9:03 pm
not on the picture now i'm in favor of the plaza. but to put a bank behind on the caltrain right-of-way and take that fence down and in an unsecured neighborhood that will only ask for trouble vandalism and theft and all kinds of graffiti i've lived in the neighborhood for 20 years been in san francisco for thirty years i'm in favor of this thing but it can't go through across the caltrain line the fence must remain the people that live in the building are going to be cloerng this table here we must respect the people to live in this complex it's a one hundred and 11 unit coming up we need a fence from the front so that at night people can respect
9:04 pm
themselves and go out on the trees and join the privacy i'm in favor of the plaza but change it to be human friendly and respective and safe it needs a gate open the front that locks on the front at 8 o'clock this will be feasible for the people that live there the people that live there deserve a little bit of peace and quiet and they need their privacy. other than that i'm in favor of the mrasz but the embankment no. you have to have the fences up to protect the people. i've been there a few years the building has been sold i'm here today because i care i'm for
9:05 pm
safety and recreation and the neighbors have a good time and hold hand to hand and blt build this but the embankment is a bad idea >> thanks for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi i'm susan a detaching neighbor. well, i might be the only member of the dog patch voices group i represent the cat the dog patch community that growing and changing and open places of community engagement is the one thing our community craves the dog patch plaza is an exciting opportunity sometimes, it takes the vision to show you the vision and the dog patch arts
9:06 pm
plaza is an opportunity to do that. michael mentioned the most recent places in the dog patch the urban had a booth and had an opportunity to share the dog patch we were excited and impressed with the concept. people really appreciated the design of the plaza and how it falls on the dog patch industrial heritage in a unique and modern way. in the scope of the open space in the having a huge opportunity on our community so i ask you to support this project and in particular to increase the fee waiver to $850,000 >> thank you is there any further public comment. oh, i'm sorry >> sewer you've spoken you get
9:07 pm
one. >> if no additional comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have a question for project sponsor just growing grateful one one spoke will the caltrain right-of-way i'm not sure where that is in relationship to the plaza >> it's the caltrain vs. caltrans. >> well, the 2 the landscape is owned by caltrans. >> oh. >> we're not near that. >> this is just the thing there i have some comments i think this is a wonderful project. we have a precedent in san francisco the park that was built with blaefrndz and the
9:08 pm
blaefrnz are there and people are sitting interest during the day there was a lot of blaefrnz at one time they might have been filed but the sun exposure and a green great place without the westerly widen. i'm comment about the frees and hope it's possible there will be having to be a wall to keep people from wondering onto the off-ramp but the place behind the blaevenz an orchid type of situation and whatever possible a walkable ground cover so people may want to sit underneath the trees it adds to
9:09 pm
the nature of the park to whatever we can design and a little bit easier to maintain other than it's flat and the orchard could have a frustrate bearing tree they'll do well. those are my main comments i think it's a very good project and i'm total in favor of it >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i have a couple of questions to follow up on commissioner antonini. you're going to negotiate with caltrain obviously but as far as access to the remainder of the embankment i wouldn't think caltrain would be favorable to that idea we're in district 4 already, we've meet with them and the concern of the other speakers i
9:10 pm
want to be clear we have to provide a new fence you don't want people wondering into the 280 where the boundary of that fence is where we want to negotiate with caltrain >> i have a question for staff. so looking at two things here per one the numbers are the same $565,100 was the amount approved by the cac >> no recommend. >> that's the original amount before the request for the increase so the 5651 hundred a within the 50 to 99 percent that the cac looks at in terms of how
9:11 pm
much fee waiver can be approved? that's correct. at that time, there were projected impact fee amount about $1.1 million they were q 50 to 99 percent of that and at that time, cac recommended 5 hundred and 65 thousand >> it was about how much. >> it was about half of the impact fee not the budget. >> okay. then now with the additional 2849 hundred pushing that up into the 7 percent range. >> uh-huh. >> and typical around i want comparison between this percentage and other percentages with respect to in kind. >> okay. >> afternoon commissioners it varies depending on the project
9:12 pm
both the construction project and depends on on the ability of that project to generate other fund. some projects get complete impact fee waivers and some smaller because of what their proposing so we don't base it on sorta percentage of the project sponsors impact fee but match it to whatever is being opposed >> i'm not opposed to it i want clarification on the way the especially the cac looks at it it so i minimal some of the concerns are that you don't want one hundred percent of the fee waiver to take place because there won't be monies for other infrastructure or other public originated projects so that's all i wanted to clarify. thank you >> thank you. city attorney has some comments
9:13 pm
to help guides the commission >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland on the procedural process where the advisory committee the commission has under the planning code the ultimate decision on whether or not to approve the in kind agreement and the funding level so you could approve every or disapprove either the original amount or the higher amount today. during the staff presentation they presented some additional language if you wanted the cac to have another opportunity to look at the higher amount. i want to clarify we did have conversations with staff but i know the small detail got lost in translation the commission can't inspect the ultimate decision to the cac if i send it
9:14 pm
back to the cac i'll offer additional language. where you could for example, approve the higher amount contingent open the cac agreeing to that but if the cac didn't agree it will have to come back again to the excision. so i can offer some language that's slightly different from the language that the staff proposed the main difference in the cac didn't agree with your recommendation that it would need to come back here we go but you don't need to send it back to the cac if that's also an option >> thank you. commissioner hillis. so i too am supportive a followup on commissioner sugaya's point on the overall kind of in kind or the fee revenue how much we get what percentage is use for in kind,
9:15 pm
you know, agreements lime and i don't know if you have those numbers >> i don't have it with me a small percentage particularly in the eastern neighborhood it falls within 80 percent of the funds have to be used for priority in the mou. so that's sort major capital like the 16th street streetscape improvement we're preserving about 20 percent of the eastern neighborhood funds and among the remaining 20 percent it's a quarter and third for in kind agreements we're looking at in kind agreements as the capital project is this a capital project donates more or less benefit than other capital
9:16 pm
projects in this case we're really taking out of 0 pot where we don't have other projects identified yet >> because i think i mean they're good you get a project done that didn't necessarily take a lot of times money appropriated but i recall like lee street on ocean avenue was kind of a run of the mile street we used in kind agreement funds i don't know if it restraining order is to the level of the neighborhoods this one clearly does given what the developers have done and the response we've received from the community there's a slippery slope balance. >> sorry i want to mention we have two more in kind agreements in the eastern neighborhoods to be coming before you in the next
9:17 pm
month's. >> so of the 20 percent how much we're going spending. >> i'll get that. >> on this specific one the two maintenance options are great but ultimately the maintenance is the responsibility i mean, if those are don't pan out who maintains the space i don't know if that's for staff or you know? >> i mean sdmifg e commissioner hillis actually, the hypothesiss we're taublgd talked to a broker and the demand for the lease space is going through the roof we're building the cafe we have a tenant that you could out so
9:18 pm
the probability of that not coming through that's our default we've been working to form the cv d and based on the project sponsors support it's probable. >> but in our agreement does it call for it doesn't call out for the option but for the maintenance. >> i think often that's united states situation frankly yes, we have to bear it responsibly in this case we can't put two very viable solutions. >> and the questions on the caltrain right-of-way is that, you know, that's a great part of the project we've talked to caltrain they're not going to give us the revenue is 75 percent kind of scaleable.
9:19 pm
>> the cities portions doesn't cover that we're privately fund that piece is 3 hundred and 90 thousand. >> so your forcing the city's contribution sew but if we have to cut off a leg that's the leg we'll cut off. it's not what we want to do i feel optimistic we've identified 3 fountains it support this kind of thing i'm feeling pretty good our nonprofit will raise the revenue >> if not. >> the city eats it. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i'm in strong support of the approval of the in kind agreement and i suggest to commissioner hillis what he said
9:20 pm
about the and a half it falls into the category of what i think is a capital improvement i don't know since we didn't participate in the layering of the understanding the initial costs for the plazas and given today's costs of what it requires to take in the design and 7, 8, 9 going by the costs are increasing you're developing for specifics and the costs i don't understand from the start i have a hard time but i appreciate the authority lies with us i do want to respect not only the work that's been done so far but hearing with the cac has to say regarding what is it they are what is being asked for. i feel a little bit in a
9:21 pm
quandary i'm prepared to approve it and the city attorney will give us the conditional over the advisory from the cac to support something not to minimize the project but the elements when i really like is the ability to adapt it with respect to the industrial use next door the heavy equipment rental for the future tools for the rental enterprises it honors and continues the traditional dog patch i'm in support of those things we're talking about maintaining the businesses, etc. etc. i talked with mr. just answer yes or no many and asked him about ownership you didn't speak to that will you explain that one more time it will remain from what i understand in the
9:22 pm
ownership of - >> yes. commissioners michael yes no matter what it will be public that's the most important thing if it passes there's a discussion i think it make sense in t in the long run is remains with the department of real estate but it will be one hundred percent public. >> that makes the neighbors of the cac an equal discussion and the other thing you've answered the naming rights you already had a tentative name that will be further discussed with the cac and the joining neighbors will not have the name of a.
9:23 pm
>> we were thinking of tomcast plaza (laughter). >> i think that was an important discussion because in the plaza legislation we asked about the naming rights by ken rich couldn't answer it. and joining the use you've talked about the maintenance we've talked about that i'm prepared to make a motion to approve the in kind with specific aspects that the department recommended >> so if i understood commissioner moore's motion to remedy the higher amount contingent on the recommendation to the cac only in the cac doesn't agree with the higher
9:24 pm
amount; is that correct? >> yes. >> i recommend that the language and i can talk about what the secretary and move that the commission hereby advised the impact fee waiver in the amount of $56,500 and approve an additional a alleged amount for $850,000 in fees waved contingent upon the project sponsor go for the recommended amount. it also move if the eastern neighborhood cac didn't recommend did additional waiver and the impact fee off hand they've you review it to take a final action rewarding the total amount of fee waiver and i can
9:25 pm
provide you with that language >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm he very much in favor of that and particularly the park will be created and maintained by the sponsor not to speak balanced of the city but there are instances where parks have been put in and new areas planned a in a couple of years the project lose funding or not done the right way and anyone who see sunset boulevard to put new turf in the middle of the medium so it's important that the sponsor is responsible for maintaining the park arrest
9:26 pm
commissioners there's a moved and seconded and read through into the record. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> the commission want to
9:27 pm
>> good afternoon. welcome to san francisco planning commission regular hearing nor thursday, may 15, 2014. i'd like to remind members of the audience that the commission does not permit outbursts of any kind please silence all electronic devices. that may sound speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. . commissioners we left off under our regular calendar for items
9:28 pm
13 a and b for the case e and c at the 1634 on pine street commissioners you'll consider the environmental impact report and hamburger from the staff on the on the conditional use authorization please know the revised porlgsz portion of draft eir end and public comment will be received but not responded inform in writing >> that good afternoon. i'm jenny from the planning department the certification of an eir draft motions was
9:29 pm
published and the public hamburger was held on november 7, 2013, the public comment closed on november 19th, will 2013, the comments documented was published and distributed on april 13th and the responses document primarily expressing for or opposition to the project. noticing no one you have comments concerned the draft eir. the eir found that implementation of the project would resultful in a cumulative environmental impact on historic architecture resources and on traffic level on intersection of van ness and pine street those couldn't be impacted below a
9:30 pm
level there's pursuant to the california quality act sequa in the commission choose to paragraph the project we recommend that the certification of the report are adequate and accurate and the procedures for which the eir comply with the sequa and sequa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code that concludes my presentation. unless you have questions >> thank you. >> good afternoon glen from the department staff for the conditional use authorization the project is 1634 open pine street that incompasses 5 lots on the north side of pine street