Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Planning Commission 22516  SFGTV  February 29, 2016 12:00am-2:01am PST

12:00 am
to the regular meeting of the thursday, february 25, thursday, february 25, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take the opportunity to let members of the public know that if you received a large number of speakers for items 1 ab the affordable housing bonus plan that item is not going to be heard until 3:30 p.m. if you're here you'll be sitting for some. at 3:30 we'll arrange for on overflow room and again, if you're occupying a seat for that item you'll be sitting here for sometime okay.
12:01 am
>> i'd like to call roll at this time. >> commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner wu we expect commissioner johnson to be absence today commissioners, the first item on your agenda is our items proposed for continuance item o1 market street preliminaries negative declaration is proposed until march 16 and item 2 post street also known as as peace plaza suit 3 hundred conditional use authorization is proposed until march 2016 and item 3 at van ness conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance until march 17 and
12:02 am
item 4 somerset street conditional use authorization has been withdrawn and finally item 5 fourth street avenue conditional use authorization it, too has been withdrawn i have no other items proposed for continuance and 3rd strei h speaker cards. >> any public comment on item 3. >> move to continue items 1, 2, 3 to march 17. >> to continue as proposed commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under your consent calendar for item 6
12:03 am
at union street the ferry plaza seafood conditional use authorization i also i have no speaker cards any public comment on item the one item on the consent calendar. >> i don't see any public comment is closed. >> and commissioner antonini and move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve item 6 commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under commission matters consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 4th and 11, 2016. >> any public comment on this item? on the draft minutes or february 4th or 11 not seeing
12:04 am
any, public comment is closed. >> and commissioner wu. >> move to approve draft minutes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners think outside the box that motion to adopt the minutes for february 4th and 11 commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 8 for commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that we had commissioner vice president richards mentioned looking for this and a couple of massing ago there was a study by the california legislative analyst office the conclusion granddaughtdwrauwas that in low income neighborhoods where there is significant amount of construction of new maufrtsd the rate of displacement is a half of that wh which would occur in the staame
12:05 am
neighborhood wheith no new construction 67 market-rate housing i think an interesting study answers the question of new impact on displacement and pricing within the neighborhoods of existing housing it is an interesting study it was also written up in the washington post and i'll see if i can get commission secretary and get a link to the study so any member of the public can read it an interesting point it brings up in extensive sub urban designtion the filtering that was the case if the past in if exist in oakland and other cities flirment is a concept that older housing is less valuable the 50s and 60s in san
12:06 am
francisco older housing the western edition and other neighborhoods most notably older environmental impact telethons westbou were not desirable people left out of the city and rent and pricing the areas fell so dramatic especially parts of western edition unfortunately were torn down strangerly enough that has turned one and 80 degrees around the remaining structures in those areas are much more valuable than built new to the areas after the older homes were torn down we have the flirltd didn't exist as a matter of fact, people are interested in denser housing and historic housing and interested in being close within urban areas so that explains part of the reason why
12:07 am
older housing within all neighborhoods has increased in value and will continue to do so unless a big change in public prospective of what is desired no housing an interesting study. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters item 9 2kr06789. >> good afternoon, commissioners want to let you know about a forum i attend on saturday, i think there were many people from the public for the displacement that was sponsored aby abag with respect to regional planning a well attended event three hundred people from the region and elected officials and community activists and developers and several of the department staff with were there a number of solutions discussed i think the most important thing is simply
12:08 am
there is a growing acceptance and awareness that the issues of affordable housing and displacement are regional not local issues i appreciate that discussion and very much appreciate seeing abag holding the discussion and have future events around the same topic before a plan in the bay area so i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> from the commission on t t thatly let you you know the future. >> commission item past events with the board of supervisors and the board of appeals no historic preservation commission meeting yesterday. >> good afternoon aaron starr manager, legislative affairs the first item was supervisor breed ordinance that allow the blade signs the commercial transit district the commission heard this on december 17th of last year and vote unanimously to recommend approval with
12:09 am
modifications. the commissions proposed administration were to require the signs to employ a remote transmitter and as near as possible and the sign to have a direct means of eliminations that is hallo low lettering and only allow the preliminary occupant you think to have that sign at the land use hearing there was a presentation by supervisor breed aid and the planning department no public comment and no questions from the committee members the committee voted unanimously to for the record with a positive recommendation next thon the agenda was supervisor wiener's to rezone noah valley town square on 24th street it is currently zoned 24th street nc d public open space with the sdooern this was
12:10 am
heard at the planning commission on february 11th of this year and amazing recommended for approval in public comment and no questions from the supervisors or the committee members sorry the committee voted to recommend approval to the full board last the committee heard supervisor avalos the authorization for the removal of unauthorized units you recall this as land use committee at the february 8th hearing the committee he recommended approval of the amended verlgs that will apply to the c-3 district a at the hearing supervisor wiener asked. an approval for the single-family homes the single-family district that are deemed quotes that is moving through the process this week the duplicated file it is all disabilitricts was back 6
12:11 am
additional amendments those primarily address the concerns from the commission which heard the item for the second time at the hearing significant public comment about housing and half against particularly the apartment association raised the process for the single-family homes should be simpler was rarely mandatory dr instead of an unauthorized unit in a single-family supervisor wiener property an amendment to the deputies owners this amendment will require a dr for removing an unauthorized units from a single-family home instead of a cu and to propose the timeline for the 3 years those amendments will be considered at next week land use the stha has time to draft the minutes the committee
12:12 am
voted unanimously to extend it to the full board with a positive recommendation the duplicated amendment will be considered next week. >> at the full board this week supervisor avalos to require the cu for illegal units and legal units the removal of c-3 passed it second reading and the increase to the transportation sustainability fee aspired by supervisor avalos passed on 6 to 5 vote on the facing the rising sun of our new day begun, first reading and the appeal of the category aable exception for the proposed shuttle program this appeal was withdrawn the board tabled it and no introductions that concludes my report thank you. >> thank you. >> and the board of appeals met last year with the full agenda and concluded at the stroke of midnight a couple of items to the interest of the commission relate presentation by jeff and depending on to the
12:13 am
board of appeals with the residential design guidelines and to the residential design team and the project in mission bay the office buildings with the association with the warriors arena a the board denied the appeal and angle appeal the variance the rear yard modification for the harding theatre you heard the conditional use authorization it was not appealed this was just the variance of the rear yard modification to facilitate the residential building at the rear of the 0 lot and the board unanimously dashboard that appeal denied that appeal for the ashbury an off-street parking and seeking to potentially patake within sfgh d park within the cigaretsetback space really less than 15 feet deep an substandard space the
12:14 am
board unanimously denied that and finally on appeal to the street you're you've heard as a discretionary review authorization for the wire facility for the proper here and the board denied that appeal at the upheld the permit as well on that and that's all. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to item 11 for case at mission street this is angeles informational presentation and the public requirement. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the board carli department staff the item before you an informational presentation presentation on the public art installation as part of mixed income on mission street i'll provide a brief overview and the planning code requirement for the public park the architect
12:15 am
will present 9 project and the artist will provide an overview in may of 2014 the project was approved for the mixed income on about mythical with 83 dwelling units and retail formula. >> it provides 100 percent all units will be restricted for families earning in the mornino0 percent ami and at risk of homeless earning more than thirty percent of ami the project required the component valued will equal to one percent of the construction costs for the demonstration the project sponsor has xhiktsdz jim campbell spvl in the work to provide the work to satisfy this requirement the planning department finds the artwork complies with the section and the cost of the art exceeds one
12:16 am
percent of the construction cost would be visible from the right away right-of-way the approval requires the final art location be submitted for review at the planning director in contusion with 9 planning commission in today's hearing we're seeking the concept and location for the proposed art installation that concludes my presentation. i'm going to turn it over to dan solomon of the architecture and cryi across the city is available for questions about the project thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i'm daniel solomon with the architectur architects for mission mr. be becker it is a pleasure to
12:17 am
present this to you and show the work of our very distinguished and interesting innovative public artist gym campbell and how to represents to the building we've designed 1036 will mission is a non-story building articulated into two verlth parts between the with two vertical mass the entries this is surrounding the entrance to the 12 foot high panel that are from the entrance and supplemental secondary piece which jim has graciously offered to do in addition to the main piece the building faces a parking lot for a long time at the clubhouse on 7th street and mission and the side wall one wall of the building faces that parking lot we rewardiwork hard
12:18 am
articulate that into graceful proportions and add shadow casting pegs on top of that and jim has convinced us he can animate those in an extraordinary way that is the second piece of public guard and the plan planning elevation is the location of the principle public art at the sfwrarns flanking the entrance so people entering the building will go 20/20 between the two panels of public art and visual to the restrooms on mission so go back to 9 prospective and jim will explain in more detail what he's proposed thank you.
12:19 am
>> hi my name is jim campbell i was chosen to create that artwork i thought because it is an unfinished work i'll start with the presentation of the existing works i've created. >> this is the work i've finished about two two years ago this is at san diego airport and it is seven hundred foot sculpture on the ceiling above the pedestrians in the gate area of terminal two and my work in general works with small lights it create images in very low resolution
12:20 am
and in this case there are images of swimmers above the people's heads and they're walking down the terminal to kind of animate the space it is normally kind of boring this was a two, 3 year project that took to complete and it exiscaptivities of 40 thousand individual hung lights it creates the background my backward was electrical engineering there's a building in hong kong the tall itself building in hong kong they decided to hand to over to an artist for the first time and choose me because of my long time working with low recessing resolution
12:21 am
illustrati the lights existed i put my work on top of of the existing structure instead of the ads that are normally there. >> and so use the same footage i did for the san diego airport you can see this for about 20 miles away. >> this is the work i just finished in at the duo money civic center a 90 foot thirty foot high sculpt it is animated in this case with runners from the detainiillo demoney than in
12:22 am
used lights in this case 15 hundred light bulbs and another work that used glass that is slightly related to the work i'll do on mission street that was your time you may want to get to the current prospering proposal. >> i'm sorry, i thought i had longer the current proposal is here it is a series of glass cubes that create a kind of modulated surface i'll go very quickly i don't realize that was my time. >> the one on the right is the one we're choosing from straight on it looks normal if you will, and the side is abstract uses the effect called total internal reduction the image no matter
12:23 am
how long it exists on the surface. >> this will be the doorway of the building and quickly the agencies had suggested putting those rods highlighting the shadows and the from the sun and i found some technology where i can turn those lights into solar powder appendix he lives to eliminate the cost of the infrastructure so you'll end up u up with two screens on the side of the building that are completely solar powder - this gives a softer light very unlike
12:24 am
union square. >> any other presentation opening it up for public comment 80 on this item if there is any not seeing any, publishc commen is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. to the sponsor just i saw the 3 choices for the figure who was walking i wondered why the decision to be the blurer of the 3 rather than the one that is clearer york i don't care i was interested especially the side view is a harder to make out what is happening. >> i like my work more sculpture like it from two perspectives it looks different and straight on can't tell the
12:25 am
distortions are there and from the side i want it almost unrecognizable but aware of the abstract state you can tell you can you've seep it the other state. >> okay. thank you. >> i personally like the art updates. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to general public comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. before we get both it those persons standing in front of the
12:26 am
doorway i see several seats available so far the members of the public fabulous we retainer are for on overflow room in room 421 if you can't find a seat you'll be able to hear and see the procedures when our name is called feel free to come to those chambers to submit our testimony thank you for your considerati cooperation. >> okay opening it up for public comment georgia swedish. (calling names) >> good afternoon, commissioners georgia swedish i'm here to talk about story poles again, i think there small
12:27 am
business should be included for all projects that require a 311 part of 311 process story poles should be installed prior to the mailing of the 311 to the owners and recipient workplace the one and 50 foot radius the alert was to the project manager it is ready for mailings once the project sponsor is alerted they can install them and sending out the 311 notification when the project sponsor signed the affidavit confirming the mailing to the neighbors they can confoirm the installation o the photos of poles and letter from the sponsor that should be included in the description of the permit application and project sponsors can be told at the inn take of this requirement it is pretty obvious why story poles are important thank you
12:28 am
very much this is for you for the minutes thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners donald disappear a resident off the city and county of san francisco i'm a proving that gets things done for any neighbors and friends we think hard what he wanted the housing policy future like today on the agenda we may have our differences or help to achieve our southern california our puck emergency i believe that the mandate we have a clear idea where san franciscans desire for the future of over city but it is all said or done we have to be united this is not who we are my friends i followed the agenda
12:29 am
closely and understand whatever their appearing to and intend to stand against that 12 san franciscans house sufferiandra everyday and other san franciscans on the streets we have the greatest loss of retired the history of the city why maybe policy and power have paralyzed on and on over the city preventing us to grow and taking the pressure off the sale and flipping rent-controlled units standing is not an option and san franciscans are progressive and demanding process the housing crisis this solution is complex we need many tools the textbooolbox and time press forward for all powerful
12:30 am
political machine of building faster and denser and higher to bring the confrontationtrol the washington, d.c. did it and denver did and a san francisco, california do it, too i'll not let the diversifiesness of the efforts to rip away the proce progress we've a maid the schafrm withs those commissioners in the past year than >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm alison heath with a lifelong friend of jackson park she and i raised our families on potrero hill and
12:31 am
other we were forced to struggle with the city over new criminality that was 20 some years ago then as now san francisco had the lowest percentage of children under 8 than any supply the country we understand the as commissioners you have zero control over the s f rp d and the budget but have the ability to shape policies through area plans and new you go guidelines to reverse the trends the showcase square castro hipotrer plans to achieve for fraamilies friendly place and others communities services zoning requirement were written to promoted a significant number of units with two or more
12:32 am
bedrooms and design housing with private entrances open space inclusion of other spaces such the pedestrian family-friendly sidewalks and onsite in what capacity like children's recreation and daycare we hope those goals will be implemented in the residential design guidelines and honor the objectives next week you'll hear ac because of the location across the street from jackson park and the close proximity it will provide a unique opportunities for families friendly housing, however, contrary to the oufkz the developer will be asking for an exception to have bedrooms without windows practically speaking that it is to imagine to pass to and from
12:33 am
living room with no exposure from the outdoor it is likely those rooms will have office and the unit will in the serve families at all granting exceptions to the codes sets a dangerous precedent and eliminates some of the strongest tools for building family-friendly housing we homing hope you'll do know and not grant the exception we urge you to find ways to have the for comprehensive processes forces building complete neighborhoods and supporting our families thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is reggie i am come before you in opposition to the planning department of 891
12:34 am
carolina street the proposed building is too big because it is taller all the houses across the street not going to fit in my wife and i moved to potrero hill two years ago when we were expecting our first child the side on the upper development unit of 897 carolina is next door to the house is big while explorer the area we were impressed by the 3 story hours i've eaten the potrero hill residents move and stay here they are contestant with the sizes of the homes you preserve the quality of the neighborhood and the gentrification is not capable of building long term
12:35 am
housing with the existing neighbors besides the issues of too high for the location on the hill the carolina project puts up a wall 2/3rd's with a window on the north side of my house it will block significant daytime and a good portion of the week the same for my daughters bedroom that has been good receiving natural raise for a family of 3 like ours even with the guests and accordingly a couple of lights on the 11 hundred square feet upper unit has been plentiful i firmly building this is adequate enough to raise a family of 3 without compromising on any conditions this is event that the families have lived here i don't see a
12:36 am
reason to justice a building 3 thousand square feet the neighborhood whether several families have also for years if and when my family feels a need to up size we'll move to another unit the city or some other place in the bay area but we will not up zone san francisco homes at the cost of during which the character of the neighborhood i'll hope you'll talk with your colleagues while making this building smaller in scale i hope you'll urencourage the colleagues not to build a wall in front of my studio thank you.
12:37 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm judy from friends of jackson park and always i come before you i'm advocating for green open space on the developments in the neighborhood in addition to saving and expanding the precious green space we have the neighborhood in jackson park today, however, i want to talk about bedrooms those enclosed spaces you've seen them in cast potrero for dens and for offices not sure about the bedrooms, however, i don't know if any of you have children but being a mom of 3 kids i can't imagine being a child that didn't have egress to the outside but there is also the whole factor which the diaper age it belongs with a
12:38 am
whole new thing you do in puberty it is not that used that way 88 arc is a development right on the park it is hour hope to have family-friendly housing real two bedroom and three bedrooms so move there and have a real three bedrooms i encourage you not to grant this exception i know i'm speaking to other developers we don't have three bedrooms yet they're waiting to hear what you rule it is that simple please help us keep real family-friendly housing in our neighborhood thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is christi live on wisconsin street from potrero
12:39 am
hill the property is directly east of carolina street the location of the controversial project a similar project was simulated by the same opener thatship and came in before you in discretionary review that was determined 9 altercation was out of scale in height and volume not only for the immediate neighbors but the preserving of open space many potrero hill the project was abandoned for a decade two years ago a slight variance reergd and back in planning ever since like the pervert this is out of shark for the neighborhoods even avenue 4 years the interim real estate from my vantage point the proposed project will create a 4 towering over any backyard i'll see the cyber it of the north in
12:40 am
space of carolina no other properties on the block that will have an invasive rear yard setback due to the height and close proximity the building will block the sun creating an negative impact of my open space and the neighbors on carolina has been raised by other neighbors at issue the interpretation of the subsequent sections of the planning code the zoning administrator made a determination that the rear yard maybe calculated using the averaging under section due to the non-conforming house to the south on carolina, however, the non-conforming property has no assess about the points on carolina and has garages facing the street thus up to the zoning administrator to make a substantive gymnast on the manner and that the owner of
12:41 am
carolina intended to move the family into the unit i'm here to suggest perhaps that the owner is operating in bad faith i sask the property receie a high-level of security in any in 3 minutes i can't give all the details of the misrepresentation of the architectural drawings e.r. the rack wantonnecoons that live in there is a big difference between responsible development and suburban development since 2002 the owner mass essential the same plan and has been tied the same process this time i ask the commission to go look at all sites of 891 carolina not just the west and south the backyards on 20 and 22 are one big open space the corridor extend to the 6th street but not with the
12:42 am
proposed structure so does the owner intend to be a born-again caregiver of the land i don't know does i have to create the biggest structure and move tote house next door he also owns. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> okay is there a motion and a second? is there any public comment commissioners on your regular calendar for a, b, and c for case - for the map 5 of the downtown general plan amendment
12:43 am
and the informational presentation on an update for an implementation for the transbay plan. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners kim planning staff the item before you there are 3 items one an informational item and there are two action items first is an informational item in which ocii staff will provide the development area and the progress of development and implementation since it is adoption in 2005 substantially we will lift up the proposed amendment to increase the height of transbay walk one from three hundred feet to 4 hundred feet the commission will be asked to make general plan consistency
12:44 am
finding for the proposed height which was through the general plan referral and to bring the plan to the board of supervisors the third is the amendment to modify the downtown plan this gpa will correct an oversight from the options in 2005 and will amend the general plan map size this gpa is not directly recommended to the proposed height which i knchang one and also will not predetermine any change that is allowed maximum heights on transbay block one, however, correcting the directions on map 4 of the downtown plmap is necessary to make it inconsistent or consistency finding i'm discussing more in detail at the end of the
12:45 am
presentation first jose from ocii will permitt provide you with the information. >> thank you good afternoon chair person fong and commissioners i'll set up my presentation. >> my name is jose campos the manager of planning and design review at the office of economic & workforce development you infrastructu infrastructure an update the transbay project in your package on the screen present to you a timeline of
12:46 am
basking the project if it's inception to now and the various action that shape this plan the transbay redevelopment project was started actually by the planning commission creation of that preliminary plan this is for the california development law the planning commission sets the boundary of the project based on the conditions of blight and those boundary are often jagged and irregular we'll go through the maps later i want to explain the planning commission kicks off the process for environment project and nicole in 1996 are formulated the transbay preliminary plan that plan was amended twice and it was amended in 2001 to make a significant change to the
12:47 am
proposed program smith and wesson 1996 and 99 the planning into the transbay project was a only a bus terminal so the demolition of the historic transbay terminal initially starts as rail and turned into a regional bus terminal the development of a new bus terminal at the main site where the terminal is now and that was two or so blocks setting the of the transit core spine of the market street and in addition didn't include the caltrans extension the citizenry of the san francisco through proposition h in 1999 mandated that plan be discarded and the transbay terminal be reconstructed on the survivalist historic the current project
12:48 am
that includes an extension of caltrans from fourth street and king to the downtown this created a shift around transbay and the planning commission in 2001 that amended the plan to reflect that so that gave us the framework we went to work and worked collaboratively with many departments but in particular with the planning department this is i'm speaking of the san francisco development agency that led the projecting program so in 2002 a multi faceted draft environmental impact report was published with the lead agency planning department, the san francisco redevelopment agency, the fta fta for the project and caltrans we were lead agencies we published the eir that basking traded the program the
12:49 am
development somewhere for the transbay development project with that, and a group of containments both the planning department even though san francisco redevelopment agency created in 2003 and published this document i'll holed up here at transbay vision document and this document is the framework for all of the proposed improvements and developments schemes in the transbay district this document really helped us develop all the further development including the redevelopment plan and the developments and guidelines the zoning for a progression of the downtown area first to certify the eir we it in 2004 and 2005 created the redevelopment planning plan and the staff created did development 0 controls and guidelines for zone one i'll explain a little bit later the differences between
12:50 am
zone one and two in zone 2 it means for the downtown plan and the downtown zoning and maintain the downtown zoning in areas that means within the transbay redevelopment project area the c-3 zoning it should be implemented by the planning department so the agency although has the authority or the entirety of the area designatspent that to administrative coor the development and the zoning code simultaneous a little bit later but not too long later at rincon was - one thing that needs to be expressed if you look at this document which is our design for the document you know the original redevelopment plan we
12:51 am
talk about maximum heights at 5 hundred and 50 feet in the entire redevelopment project area that includes the area around market stre mointh moikt transit tunnel now the salesforce tower we've done the environmental documentation we starti started thinking that will be interesting to consider and higher height at the point place where we can pun what the the reconciliation for the transbay terminal something higher than 5 hundred is not a flat reconciling but maybe eight-hundred feet or something like that that is the feed that started with the planning commission district plan the district plan increased the heights in looking removing and what was approved the transbay
12:52 am
but most importantly around the transit center itself and the height of the now the salesforce tower architecturally revised to one thousand and 70 feet which will be the tall itself tower in san francisco located within the transbay redevelopment project out that have that is the transit district plan in 2002. >> this is just to get your baerz as far as the geography the jagged line that surrounds the transit center on mission is incorporates the northern parcels fulsome street and all the way down to harrison is the transbay redevelopment project area and that traces the conditions of light we've determined to justify the use of
12:53 am
redevelopment tools which includes tax and financing but a reprogramming of lands that was left vacated or underutilized when the embarcadero freeway and the terminal separated did structures around the transbay tunnel to be best not there this is an opportunity maybe awareness is n a lifetime for a portion of downtown sfr san francisco so we did that the area of zone one is almost all public parcels owned by caltrans not all but mostly by caltrans and they were irregular parcels similar to what you seen the market octavia around the demolition of the central freeway and had the opportunity to redesign a community in san francisco that was zone one and zone 2 is also the redevelopment
12:54 am
project area but the area he was meveng mentioning under the planning department and the planning code the guidelines that ocii as a successor agency to the redevelopment agency administrators only applies to zone one that district plan came in later and rectangle shaped if market street down to fulsome and over laupz laps so this was important for you to see what the boundaries of those implementing plans are. >> okay. >> so at the time that caltrans agreed or the state of california agreed to transfer all the former freeway parcels to the city and county of san francisco it had to be done by a assembly bill at the state this bill ab 812 loud for us to
12:55 am
receive that lands and develop on top of but it created the requirement that is unique and something we have to really take seriously for the lives of the redevelopment plan, which expires in 2003135 so at the end of the day this law requires that the entire transbay redevelopment project area zone one and two 35 percent of all unit built whether pubically sponsor sponsored they have to be affordable to our redevelopment plan actually requires 1 percent inclusion on any project in zone one under the planning code or zone 2 we'll talk about that lgan little bit more it is a key point. >> for you to get an idea of the redevelopment project area in zone one we've created a
12:56 am
development scheme it is drip active tells the future developers to buy the city owned or agency owned land and to develop on it you have to do exactly what we say this is based on a design that was unanimously approved at the board of supervisors and by the transbay advisory committee through the lots of public workshops and various i'd like say urban design professionals and came up with the ideas of fulsome street this portion of fulsome street turn it into fulsome boulevard and a set back of 15 feet along fulsome a wide sidewalk boulevard promenade from the almost the top of the hill there once you come down off of second street and go into the ramps that serves as a point
12:57 am
of constriction and opens up into a wider boulevard with a view tefrmentd added yerba buena island so where we have the opportunities blocks provides an opportunity to create an urban scheme we have the terminal structure and other portions of the, if any, that is basically the main block we were given in opportunity to deteriorate a extra predict and a park the middle the heart of the community we're building now and so when we designed where the towers will go this is first time we were actually able to really design a let's say after prop m after the downtown plan of the 80s this was the first time we were given the opportunities to look at increasing the heights on a gardener scale but in a judicious way we said you have
12:58 am
to go to build the towers where the blue things will have to be a certain height not shorter or taller exactly the way we programmed it we figured this scene allows for adequate tower separation and the quality of life and reduces the shadows on the structures particular the park that we were planning the transbay park between main and veiling there is other parts but outside of our zone one is the parcel f owned by the transbay joint powers authority and the salesforce tower under construction you'll note also under the public barium's able to in addition to in particular with the 35 percent affordability requirement able to build a lot of affordable housing so we'll have a main goal of creating the liveable community make sure it
12:59 am
is affordable and pedestrian orient and a good urban design so you see that is, we have looking at a potentially over a 13 hundred housing units open space, 9 acres of new parks, even some office development also within the transit zone two we see the opportunities for 13 hundred new residential units and 4 millions square feet of office development. >> so what i'm going to do is this is you are update a tour on the status of our blocks we divide up zone one into blocks and those of you who have the printed copy and members of the public you have them on the table you may want to look at
1:00 am
this map as i walk you through projecti projecting what is going on in and have of those blocks i'm presenting these to you in order of timeline of construction or likely construction the first project that is done is block 11 the renée apartments this is 100 percent affordable housing it is has supported housing for formally homeless individuals and includes nonprofits supported you know services on site it is designed by leading i didn't architects it is build and occupied this is located on the corner of fulsome andes i can e e on the south sorry the southeast corner. >> block six and seven 6 is under construction between barbara hale and fremont street
1:01 am
this is a joint development the senseless that block 6 what is developed by the galloping and block 7 by mercy housing, mercy housing has a stand alone 100 percent on block 7 and architects are santa to see and prescott and associates and the remainder the chief architect is solomon and here we'll have 5 hundred and 99 units of which 80 will be affordable we threw up see the construction soon we're the final phases of the construction block 4 was presented to you already an office building required our consideration this is under construction the developer again is gallopi and the architects has one and one
1:02 am
and 80 square feet plus close o closest to the financial district and block 8 between fremont and first street is housing development mixed income and roll call on the ground floor following the urban design scheme they all sides this is related in conjunction with the architect and willingly may and architects 5 hundred and 46 units of which 27 percent are accountable again also construction we expect to start in the next couple me u couple e block is the design and we sunshi should see the construction start the architect is skid marks and again local architects 4 hundred and 36 units one and 9
1:03 am
are affordable. >> now still some blocks we have to design not planned transferred to developers and those are blocks 2, 4, and 12 both blocks 2 and 4 flank the park which is part of this district that is on the main barbara hale block that is the transbay terminal with temporary transbay terminal once the real transbay terminal is built that 2er7b8 will be developed for this reason this is later development and block 2 will be 100 percent accountable and block 4 a tower and north of the park and should have significant affordab fundament affordability as block telephone at second and harrison.
1:04 am
>> in addition part of redevelopment scheme requires public improvements i've talked about fulsome boulevard and the si designs has been done on a block by block basis we've started this scheme on block 6 but the full boulevard should start next year. >> question expect a park under the ramps this is anything out of planning process how to utilize the lands that is used for car parking the land the freeway under the ramps that is the fremont foovoff ramp and ha scheme in the mid phases of the design and hopefully by 2018 see construction starting and finally again, the transbay park centerpiece of the district and 2018. >> overwhelms i'm going ov *
1:05 am
my colleagucolleague back. >> for this part of presentation i'd like to describe 9 family pro action we went over the first action what was the informational for the entirety of the transbay redevelopment area and this part of presentation we'll focus on the general plan action on january 19, 2016, the ocii commission approved an amendment to the transbay redevelopments trying to increase the height of block one from three hundred feet to 4
1:06 am
hundred feet block one is within zone one of the transbay redevelopment area and as jose mentioned the ocii commission maintains the ceqa jurisdiction and evidences on one and for block one as well but state law provides the fubts for the planning commission to review the amendments and report on the general plan consistency and make recommendation to the full board of supervisors the board of supervisors will take the final action on the amendment occ staff whether or not this with a representative from studio gang the architect are here to provide a detailed overview of the proposed project for block one they'll discuss the rational and the analysis for this and the implementation after the presentation i'll come back and talk about the
1:07 am
consistency for the general plan and go over the last item the general plan amendment before you today. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong, commissioners my name is shawn hereto the project sponsor i work with ocii all to introduce the developer representatives who were here carl, he's with tissue man and inspire and we also have here sophie hayward, yeah. >> jose provided you a good overview of the overall transbay area what i'm going to do is
1:08 am
divi defi dooefd to the project block one is located on fulsome between main and spear street if i look at the zoning of the block it is zoned for a excuse me. three hundred foot tower, 6 story podium and 8 story podium and townhomes. >> for the project summary the reason the planned amendment is needed there is which we want to increase the height of the tower from three hundred to 4 hundred feet the project is planned a mixed income total three hundred and 99 units the public benefits of the height increases it increases the total project housing units and that will include 44 additional affordable
1:09 am
units 40 percent of the unions one the project will be affordable 20046 units and the project is 391 that's how we calculate the 40 percent they will be disperses the first 26 floors with one and 16 one bedrooms and 22 two bedrooms and 55 three bedrooms which is the total of three hundred and 91 units the amenities will be shared by all the residents and jose will present later we see insignificant shadow impacts. >> some background on the site 2003 ocii actually purchased a proportion of block one we own 2/3rd's of that site in 2013 to
1:10 am
72015 tishman inspire purchased 4 sites within block one and 2014 ocii and tishman inspire had an exclusive negotiation agreement since that time we've been working with tishman and inspire on the designs they're building within the property as well as working with them on the terms of the sale of the land under the development of the project in january of 2016 the transbay cac approved the agreement and recently a couple of days good mayor ed lee and supervisor kim co-sponsored legislation for the block one amendment.
1:11 am
>> this is the proposed development program you can see on the east side where the 4 hundred foot tower will be located podium one is the 6 story and podium 2 the 6 story podium along the boulevard if you can see about two-thirds of the site where it says ocii paraly parcels an arrow this is the parcel that ocii owns 44 thousand square feet the lower approximately thirds zoned it is compromised of 4 parcels owned by tishman and inspire and own 25 thousand square feet obviously because the zoning in block one they must be designed together we can't design it
1:12 am
without tishman inspire and they can't without us. >> that was in november of 2014 to go to the far right column and look at it titled benefits on the tower heights as you may know we're proposing a one hundred foot increase that will provide 9 more stories a total of 73 more units overall for the project of those 73 there will be 454 of these will be bmr units the overall project affordability will go to 40 percent it was 35 percent when we executed did e n a and for the levels of look at the you
1:13 am
see the podium is totals 76 units and 75 that is 80 percent ami and 26 and 25 at 100 percent ami within the tower there is 80 units total there i'm going to for the bmr's and of the 8050 will be 100 percent ami and thirty at one and 20 percent ami and again, the bmr's will be dispersed within the first 2/3rd's of the tower. >> we have here is if - we did worked with market consultants and some outside financial consultants and calculated the public benefit of the additional
1:14 am
one hundred feet and the public benefit came out to 31 millions and the developer with 46 remaining. >> for the proposed mix i put this shied to get a feeling for the bmr if you go to the total bmr it is the podium plus the tower as you can see 72, one bedrooms with an afternoon size of 6 hundred plus and 64 two bedrooms with an average size of 8 hundred plus square feet and 23 bedrooms at an average size of whoever one thousand the minimum sized planning within the current designs for the one
1:15 am
bedroom minimum size about 480, two bedroom 8 hundred and the three bedrooms is 11 hundred and then as you can see the ocii moh for the 5 hundred for the twem e two bedroom and three bedrooms at one thousand the current designs exceed the minimum requirements. >> regarding the land sale terms as jose mentioned earnestlier e individual project is required to provide 15 percent affordable that's for the redevelopment plan but for the overall redevelopment area which includes zone one and two a requirement that we have to
1:16 am
provide 35 percent affordable housing that is through the end of the redevelopment plan and so therefore if the accountable if it is accountable required above 15 percent we have to negotiate that with the developer and it usually requires a couple of things the developer to perhaps build more than the riders 1 percent and ocii to provide a subsidize and this is the case of with the other blocks within zone one area for example, the block 8 that was a rental affordable project and ocii subsidize that about 200 thousand a unit for the 70 podium units within that project block one like i said in 2014 at
1:17 am
that time the ocii agreed to 2 e housing unit ahundred plus for the podium units a total of 29 plus million we were about goine reason in block 8 because on the affordable rental projects the developers were able to get tax credit money that is the thing and in this case with block one the block one developer is actually funding a shortfall as a relates to the affordable units the e n a the land price was set at $19.2 million and that was paid at close of escrow and what will happen is that we will get
1:18 am
paid the $19.2 million and put 2 the bank because we were subsidized the podium units as the developer built the podium units weeping we'll subsidy that during the construction and the appropriately deal land price is still $19.2 million not paid in cash at the close of escrow the developer constructed that without an ocii subsidize to the construction of podium constitutes the payment of a land price that saves us been 1 point 7 million dollars the reasons that ocii is recommending in tower increase number one more affordable
1:19 am
housing minutes within the project ocii goals to build affordable housing and we'll get an additional 44 unit and number two the emphasis of overall for zone one and two because this project exceeds that it helps us meet the goal. >> the arithmetic for this project the associated architecture a perry architects and yanking the leading architect is studio gang excuse me. and to discuss the project architecture we have harriet from studio gang. >> hello i'm harry with studio architects thank you for having
1:20 am
us here to discuss the project i thought i'll show you a picture of brief project this is the ac what tower in chicago pled in 2010 and this is the high land the standard hotel should start construction this summer and a tower we're working on in chicago rising from the right to the left away from the lake front in 3 mass you see there and should be shatteritarting tribulation u construction this summer. >> here we are a view of the fulsome tower from the embarcadero st. peter it into the street. >> and here we see a view univerup the facade looking at the -
1:21 am
we'll discuss a little bit about the earth from the 4 hundred foot tower as opposed to the three hundred foot tower. >> in designing the building and applying the singular element of the bay window size to the units in transpire spaces on the left one bay and as we apply that cross the side vertically into the mitigating bay to justiadjust the view for interi interior spaces and we shivered up and around the building and then in 4 slides it creates that around the mass and that is on the 3 hundred foot tower and one of the things that was a challenge given the prescription of the three hundred feet limit and described the floor plates of the building as you can see that is a little bit more squat and we studied a number of
1:22 am
rotations and further depend it the last slide the 4 hundred foot tower with the rotation allowed the development to expe extend the slenderness and more squat and the 4 hundred foot tower is initialvirtually more the mitigating as it rotates around. >> here just a graphic where the line as a migrates across the facade anything thin we are studying how the building approaches the streets integrates with this public way here's from sphere and fulsome extending to fulsome boulevard plan and part of development
1:23 am
agreement set in the early days and trying to maintain an engagement of the inside of the building to the public and street level and activating the streets on blooth sides and here's a view on the mid block of fulsome looking at east past the gap building and the mass between the podium and make it can a more pedestrian friendly experience an entry to the second level common space for the building. >> and walk further around the site you can see the podium building and townhomes which clemente is part of master plan expended as a public street through the site and here a view across the future of transbay park looking
1:24 am
back at the building and ems to jose an animation developed thank you for your time. >> thank you harvey as a pedestrian will experience we also concerned with the propose pedestrian will experience we also concerned with the proposed 86 to impact the experience of the city both from inside the neighborhood but from affair i'll present to you some of the analysis on urban form and starting transitioning from this view and rendering of the transbay park and the townhomes on clemente street and this tower at 4 hundred feet this is
1:25 am
one vantage point of the tower betwe within the neighborhood i want to the show you had some of the analysis of the photo anyone tamper for the people that lives the district as and experience the neighborhood as a pedestr n pedestrian. >> so we also wanted to basic compare the three hundred to 4 hundred foot difference and come up are a recommendation to our commission and you and finally to the board of supervisors this right now is are still if a video i'll show you shortly it is existing conditions at rincon park this is the walkway along the embarcadero part of the trail i think the most significant public promenade the
1:26 am
vicinity so this is how it looks like now this is with the respect 75 howard and other development in the pipeline superimpose on this paragraph this photograph the 4 hundred foot tower as you can see the building in front of it operationally is the gap building block and so this is between stuart and spear street this building is between spear and main and from this vantage point of 4 hundred feet it starting to appear and say he o hello. >> we also want to look at another important aspect this is our fulsome project that was taken on a rainy day that was the block 6 tower the center the northern side of fulsome street and the construction sites or
1:27 am
blocks 8 and 9 are empty currently and at the street is on a rainy day not visual but a glimpse of yerba buena island on the corner of essex and fulsome this is what the three hundred block one will look like on the left as you can see it is at the far end of this view on the left side and those are the proposals that are will be soon under construction blocks 8 and 9 and though their experiences as a pedestrian when your and a a pedestrian you don't see the height maybe up to 85 feet the podium of a structure we wanted to make sure we are looking at building from a little bit of a distance still within the community to see how this impact is when you see the tower as pedestrian and you see the
1:28 am
increase from three to four hundred this is the 4 hundred foot tower not taking away the view of the water or yerba buena island it does escrow into the skin. >> a bit whoops - i'm going to togg toggle. >> as you can see the buildings are the taller and takes a little bit of the blue out of the sky and now i wanted to show you this video hold on please. >> this is a time lapse video of a walk along the promenade on
1:29 am
the embarcadero at rincon park where the restaurants and to the south and walking towards the northern portion of park and xefrps the tower at 3 do hundred and 4 hundred feet as it impacts our view as pedestrian. >> this is at three hundred feet at fulsome you see that most but often tucked behind the g gap. >> you also see it next to 4 hundred feet. >> here you see the building behind the gap building it has a relationship with the infinity development it
1:30 am
staggered and separated the tallest part of the building and development as you can see the gap building serves as sort of a stepladder up to the 4 hundred feet in height. >> but probably most importantly i'll say of significant importance is how a higher building will impact the urban form and the skin. >> of the city so we did an analysis look at the general plan we looked at this kwherp developing the original scheme we want to make sure we were following the principles the downtown area plan and the urban
1:31 am
design and the general plan two of the principles strike us as important one of them the urban design element the principle that heights in san francisco should step down to the waterfront so we looked at that we also look at the another urban design principle which is how to x what the the typography the san francisco by circling taller building built on the hip tops and not on the flat areas i'm showing you here a health map of you see the proposed transbay block one at 4 hundred and orange has a color coding of the development that is either built or imminent it is permitted and there is at the pipeline projects and we mapped
1:32 am
them all to basically see the future of san francisco skyline will be with reference to the urban design principles and general plan principles as you can see from the north of fulsome street we have thanks to the transit center some significant height increases as to what we assumed the heights of downtown mound or the financial district in san francisco and the top of that is the peak of our downtown mound the transbay terminal tower now the salesforce tower list at nine hundred and 17 are 12 height to the ravoofline it is actually, e thousand 70 and several other projects under construction like 4 ti permeating in between block one and that peak of the downtown mound
1:33 am
that basically steps down in height to the 4 hundred feet at block one so similarly to the south and more with regards to that second urban design principle which is x we can't the tap graph at the heights of t because of the extensions the planning code with 6 hundred and 75 feet and the grade differential a seven hundred foot height at this point that tarps down through rincon hill and through the infiniti project and down to the waterfront and
1:34 am
infracti framing the waterfront a district of 2 to three hundred feet structures most recently well, not built yet but recently approved 75 howard but have the gap building a redevelopment project at the highest point it separates the rincon park and the embarcadero waterfront from the block one development that block has the heist height about 200 and 89 at the top of the earthal top but 200 and 40 parts of occupied space by the podium of 90 feet wall that edge of that frames rincon park and the edge of the city basically expends if in the current built form from the ferry plaza building plaza to the bay bridge
1:35 am
through the gap building and the plazas we have a band of two hundred to 3 hundred feet is the city's waterfront and our building proposal at block one 4 hundred footsteps up not hidden with the actual it pro intrudes but we feel in an appropriate way behind the stepping down the gap building and the other buildings along the downtown portions of our waterfront. >> so we decided to do a little bit more detailed analysis this looks like basically a cross section of fulsome boulevard i prefer to call it and our redevelopment program along zone one and it contemplates the
1:36 am
three hundred versus the 4 hundred feet and the the stepping down height for the waterfront and the typography of rincon park so to the north a cross section at the peak of the salesforce tower and all of those heights on the diagram are within the two blocks every north or south of fulsome street on the northern portion those are building in between mission and howard and fulsome the vicinity and as you can see the heights are extensive and they do in fact, if you follow the angle down step down to the gap building at three hundred and to the south we see a great dmraevenl a one foot differential the categoriross s with a 75 foot height and rincon to the gap building i wanted to share but the next slide
1:37 am
which is at 4 hundred feet we fit within that angle so we're not actually pursued out of the ang angle. >> this is when we did the consideration of building higher heights in transbay we developed the transbay we looked at the impact of a potential height increase an important advantage points from twin peaks to the took up of taylor's and where bernal heights but tennis or since this building is located behind taller building not visual from other advantage points in the city but from the bay the view that is the most significant impact and image of our city in fact, this view from the bay bridge as one drives
1:38 am
across the bay bridge that is the existing view from the skyline with the gap building. >> and this is how it will look with the projects planned in our pipeline with a three hundred foot tower hidden it. >> and this is the difference at 4 hundred so given the context both north and south of what is being built or is built already in san francisco we do feel this does nemeet the text of the urb design principles and stepping down and the case of rincon hill the natural top from of san francisco. >> this is why we ask your
1:39 am
acceptan acceptance of three to four hundred this plan arraignmemend requires ceqa we prepared an addendum to the environmental impact report and the increase 2, 3, 4 height clearly was impacts that needs to be looked with respect to shadow and widens our widen study demonstration no additional hazardous conditions as a result and widen as a result from three to four hundred and then most importantly we not to look at the shadows we knew that required a very detailed analysis so we actually prepared with the help of a consultant over three hundred page document looking at the shadow of shadow impacts on public open spaces the vicinity and those public open spaces that we analyzed are 6 they're
1:40 am
listed here those are the paperwork not just existing but actually proposed within what is called the shadow fan of this tower. >> we discussed rincon park a lot and transbay park but also some pubically assessable open spaces on spear and main street and included the proposed transbay rooftop park on top of transbay terminal. >> this chart here tells us the result of our analysis we took this seriously we viewed the vsection of the planning coe that is basically known as probating methodologies we look at the stohadow and areas of th city under the prop c list or jurisdiction required to use a methodology that is dlaepd in
1:41 am
the planning code and took that methodology we're not required to and applied it to not only rincon park but the proposed parks like transbay park and wanted to credential defensive and at the bottom row of the chart the biggest impact with respect to increased shadow as measured in this is one of the things that less than 0.5 percent and with respect to the rincon park that increase in shadow a result of the proposed height will be doer .34 percent and much less for transbay park and wanted to make sure that looking at where the shadow falls it wouldn't impact the enjoyment or recreation use of parks so we did an analysis i'll
1:42 am
show you briefly a video that demonstrates the shadow at key points of year and this chart tells us the extent of the longest stent of the increaseofn the shadow in rincon park 45 minutes and the day's there is the maximum shadow near the equinox in transbay park ross the summer soltice so i'll show you a quick video how the shadow impacts our parks. >> oh, before i play the
1:43 am
shadow i'll ask you consider a few things in the video basically it shows in the three hundred foot proposal clearedin through the zoning a light blue shade of the tower that will be at 4 hundred feet look for the dark shadowing on the video that had been the incremental difference between 3 and 4 hundred and you'll no per diem projects in their not shown as shadows but you'll see a trace a light trace of purple those are the analysis pursuant to planning requirement this video shows the two solace and the
1:44 am
equin equinox. >> this is transbay park you see on the slowly us the biggest impact on the corner of transbay park that's the day of maximum shadow on the 21st of june but it doesn't reach rincon yet. >> you can follow the time of day with the clock that runs to see what time the shadows actually impact the parks you're here the equinoxs. >> and look for the dark blue the incredible shadow up mental hundred. >> did red figures are the
1:45 am
restaurants in rincon parktdid restaurants in rincon pahdid re restaurants in rincon paedid re restaurants in rincon parkid re restaurants in rincon park red restaurants in rincon park and the slowly us the winter solatie it follows the registratiedge o park the late averafternoon. >> so that more or less
1:46 am
summarizes the presentation our addendum looking at shadow determined there was not a sixth environmental impact we had at least 10 community outreach meetings the advisory committee voted and the ocii commission voted unanimously for the plan amendment in january today, we're meeting with you in february and as shawn hart mentioned to you mayor ed lee and supervisor jane kim are co-sponsoring on ordinance to consider it before the board of supervisors we hope to see heard in april following that on parallel fracture at ocii commission provid provides the dynamics to the schematic destine design for the land disposition agreement in order to rectify that the board
1:47 am
of supervisors has to okay. the property transfer in accordance it is navigate the fair market value that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> there's a long day i know in front of you for the finding the general plan consistency the staff look at the area plan we focused on 3 things the analysis was urban design and affordable housing and third was shadows on parks and open space first urban form and jose went into the urban design analysis the urban design element downtown and the district plan has policies related to the urban form and two major points it ocome out o those tapering that that jose
1:48 am
described and a visual skyline continue rincon hill and downtown area towers staff reviewed the urban design analysis that was jubefore you before you and fiound it consistent with the points at 4 hundred feet the proposed walkway about support of tapering plan from the top of the rincon tower down to block one to 4 hundred feet and the gap building similar from the north side from the transit tower and also maintain a separation in design skyline between rincon hill and denounced with the towers right across from the block one at three hundred and 50 and 4 hundred the proposed project will create a balance on both sides of fulsome street and the skin. >> and blends in request the
1:49 am
city's skyline the second thing we analyzed affordable housing we looked at the housing element and there were several policies that providing affordable housing in areas of the city that are transit friendly and also seeking innovative solutions more affordable housing without traditional government subsidies this proposed increase as you've heard will add 44 bmr units out of the 73 units added that is about 60 percent of the units added will be bmr the percentage of the bmr of the entire project will increase from 35 percent to 40 percent staff also finds this height increase sooth for the downtown because looking at the convention access to public transit the majority of units
1:50 am
are designated to modern families for the ownership in a very transit centered neighborhood and also the dense contact of this neighborhood provides stable for added height without significantly changing the character especially it adds more bmr and the open spaces that again jose described in detail that added shadow that maximum added shadow is only 1/3rd of one percent of rincon park and staff reviewed the location and time of this added shadow on rincon park and found that this impact of the additional shadow is insignificant with the open spaces so also consistent with the related policy of the open space. >> so based on those 3 things
1:51 am
staff finds the proposed height consistent with the general plan it was published the department receiv received no letters of support for the proposed height which was so this brings us to the last part of presentations the general plan amendment first why do we need the proposed amendment that is out of sync with the transbay redevelopments plan that regards the maximums height allowed for transbay block one in 2005 block one was sdroend up to three hundred feet this map from the
1:52 am
tb tribute shows block one at three hundred feet the other map from the design and development controls that jose talked about this is also showing more details on the controls and the tower up to three hundred feet however, our map 5 of the downtown plan is not consistent with that we have graphics that will show that more clearly this is a blown-up version of the map the it is your quturquoe
1:53 am
transbay plan development controls and this 6 parcels as you can see in the pink area are in zone one not really the two hundred axil were left out in some amendments so this is an error and oversight in the general plan for the transbay 2005 the department was made aware of the area while looking at the plan for block one height change and the depth department is proposing to next 24 for the - what of the the plan amendment does the amendment adds another notion in map 5 to include the 6 parcels left out in 2005 general plan mainstreamed it will look
1:54 am
like this and red notiation to remove the s labels on the block 37 lots, zero 27, thirty and 32 and 37, 39 and other lots and replace that with a notation see the transbay development controls the first 5 parcels are within block one and the 6 parcels the small portion of block two with the notion the map 5 will rnth the changes to the maximum height limit that remains in 2005 for all the parcels within zone one and again, this clean up gpa is 1ri7 vicinity from the height change and not super possess any height limitations of block one, however, staff finds it
1:55 am
necessary for the finding for the original plan and lastly i want to read into the record some edits to the preamble it is has the adopted ceqa and recommend approval of the amendments to the development plan for the redevelopment plan area to increase the maximum from three to four hundred feet and strike 11:00 replace with one of the transbay project area and adopting the general plan of the planning code strike one 02
1:56 am
and replace with one 01 that concludes my presentation. one more thing there is city attorney provided some changes minor changes to the general plan amendment ordinance those are basically two commas the text of the ordinances and i see the corrections the title i have the corrections here for you and we ask that you make your decision on these amended ordinances thank you. >> we're here for any questions david and josh from our department thanks. >> thank you and>> thank yo all presenters speaker cards we have here (calling names). >> opening it up for public comment colleagues, any questions or comments? (calling names) and when speakers line up on
1:57 am
this side of the room good afternoon, commissioners i'm scott i'm an attorney working with the organization to save rincon park they're concerned about the 4 hundred foot height limit and to be clear the decision is not about whether this should be a building or whether or not affordable housing not whether the folks the room should have jobs building the building three
1:58 am
hundred versus 4 hundred feet a great building one way or another and this site will be developed in a way that will add to the city three or four hundred feet 3 points i urge you to respect the progress i mean you went through a process first included public input and zoning to the piece of land is 200 height limit and another process take a look at that the changes the development were going on and it decided that that height limit should be increased to three hundred feet now you're asked through the not same sort of public process in providing the general plan but make an exception to one plan to one developer that is contrary to the process you should go through especially a parcel
1:59 am
adjacent to the waterfront the second thing i'll say you should respect the policies jonas if i have the overhead. >> sfgov should go p there. >> you've heard the policies are stepped down at the waterfront with respect to the tap aggressive taller knows building on the hill and step down to the water. >> this particular project does not do that at 4 hundred feet at three hundred a tapering down from the 200 foot building maximum 200 foot building at waterfront to a three hundred foot building one block away from the waterfront you saw the
2:00 am
animation but let me show you the existing waterfront. >> the 4 hundred foot building first three hundred foot building and then the 4 hundred foot building that is not a tapering down but sticking out like a obscure thumb interrupting building are great the right space and the right place this is right at three hundred feet. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> game-changer commissioners director - my name is danny a wretched the sheet metal workers r0

100 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on