tv [untitled] December 11, 2011 6:00am-6:30am PST
today. the people who supported it feel it is one of the greatest san francisco has. it has evolved dramatically with the ferry building rejuvenation and other things that have happened to the neighborhood. it has just begun. the very building, the america's cup proposal, teh explora torium are all highlighting the changes in the neighborhood. the city has not officially adopted the plan presented that calls for this plan to be done. it has accepted and review the plan done. it calls for something dramatically different to the neighborhood. there is an ongoing lawsuit that claims the court, yourself, the city have not acted within the law. that is in the process of being appealed. that was supported by 90-- 19
neighborhood organizations and others. thank you for your time. >> next. >> good afternoon. i am the president of the barbary coast neighborhood association. we believe this project is still seriously flawed. number one is the parking situation in the garage. this project was billed as being a transit-friendly project. if it is transit-family, why is the developer need 420 parking spaces? city policy is one car for every two condos. that cannot happen here. these rich, super-rich buyers are not going to settle for that. the developer wants twice as
many parking spaces for the residents than the city allows. he will need to get special permission for that. next, america's cup. the agreement with the city says the city and port will do everything they can to limit and even the construction during the america's cup. i would propose that this project should not even be considered until after the america's cup is completed. there are going to be something like 400 loaves of debris coming out of this site on to washington, the embarcadero, right in the middle of the america's cup event if the timing as promised continues. our association represents 5000 residents and businesses in the northeast waterfront, ground zero for this development. we do not agree with it. thank you. >> next.
>> i am an urban planner representing myself. i would like to say that i support the testimony from spur. i have personally study the plans in detail. in my professional opinion, this is an excellent plan that should be approved and implemented without further delay. the project takes what is an embarrassing environmental blight a parking lot and chain- link fence and turns them into vibrant, open spaces desperately needed housing, and an improved recreation flow. the project is a great benefit to the city, the port, and the neighborhood. the design of the building and open space is first rate. the track record of this
developer is absolutely first- rate. the financial benefits to the port are incontrovertible. i listened to the opponents and a non-plus. the four-story building along the embarcadero is hardly a high-rise. the recreation club is not going away. it is being rebuilt. the city desperately needs housing at all price points. the plans are in full compliance with the public adopted plans for the area. i can only conclude that some people have decided that they will not like any plan. i urge the port commission to move this project forward at the earliest possible time. thank you. >> are there any other speakers on this item?
>> the west side of the embarcadero from washington street to where it ends is under the management of golden gateway and support. that is it. -- and the port. that is it. you are the people being trashed because of the quality of your spaces. the other owner of this blight which has also been trashed is golden gateway. that is part of the project. people that are trashing the city are using it as the rationale for developing a massive project on schedule with the rest of the city. as was said earlier tonight,
when golden gateway was developed, the company came in dangling the big enticement in the negotiation process. it used to be a lot more flexible. you could change the deal while going through negotiations. they got the site because they promised public amenities. it is like every time the city does a new community. everyone promises everything. you have had lots of promises in the last couple of years on redevelopment. you take it away when no one is looking a couple of years later. golden gateway wants to make some money off of the site they got for $1. they got the entire site to develop because they promised a public amenities for the life of the project.
the life of the project is still going on. public amenity was the recreation center. it is tennis courts and swimming pools. now you are being announced meet -- you are being asked to get rid of the tennis courts to cut a deal to do a land swap. that is what is going on. i find it frustrating that the only people who have seen these plans are the people that he got to show up on this. they say they love the new plans. there is nothing for the public. i asked staff about where the plans are. i was told there would be some here for the public. there are not any. i would like to have a set of the plans. they're not available from the planning department. they are available to the people misspoke in favor of the project. this is a project that is going to have problems.
it is going to go on for awhile. thank you very much. >> are there any other speakers on the plan? commissioners? >> there was a reference to open space. there is a little blurring of the green roof. the green roof was not considered part of the square footage of open space. i just wanted to confirm that. but that is correct. -- >> that is correct. a question was raised by the manager of the ferry building in terms of substitute parking for the ferry building. have we made plans for that? what will transpire during construction?
>> we are looking at that question. we have been discussing the issue with the very building management. support staff has been. we do not have a completely resolved yet. we're working towards a solution with them. we do not have an answer to that question today. the parking agreement between the port and the ferry building management does propose an area to consider for replacement parking should a garage contemplated. we are using that as the template to guide our discussion. i can answer the question she raised about the construction period. according to environment to review documents, it is a 24 month construction when a. >> there has been a lot of discussion about giving up the tennis courts. was there no other option to maintaining the tennis courts? >> i should probably defer to the developer on that. >> i just want to respond to the
question. the recreation center was never given to the developer as a public recreation center. it is a private club, one of the most expensive in the city. there are some skewing of the facts going on. the tennis courts were reviewed by the club operator. it is a commercial enterprise. it makes a lot of money. the tennis courts and swimming were reviewed by the operator and owner. we listened during the process to a lot of people. fog does not represent 2000 people. they are a self-selected group. the majority of people in the club have expressed an interest for much better swimming
facilities for all the people need the water aerobics, young families wanting swimming programs and summer programs. we have been accused of ending the summer programs. to the contrary, the aquatics center will encourage kids from all over the city to come. the tennis courts were deemed by a lot of people as a perfectly lawful use of urban land. take 7500 sq. ft. 42 people to play on. 7500 square feet will give you a couple of childrens' playgrounds. it was a decision taken by everybody. there are no plans available. it is in eir. traffic has been looked at in a variation of eir. >> it is currently a private club. had there been some taxes or reduced rates for local
residents? i seem to recall something along those lines. will provisions be made for some affordability for local residents to have access to the club? >> as part of an inducement to rent in the golden gateway rental apartments, the owner of the club discounts it by some percentage at the moment. we have made very clear that there is not going to be any preference given to the buyers. there will be just like everybody else. they can go apply to the golden gate and pay their money. we're not going to own the club. we have no right to pledge it to people. we're very interested in helping. in a lot of the neighbors are very supportive of the project. they live in the same apartment units. they are keen to have the programs continue.
before the opponent's suit this is a -- that is incorrect. the lawsuit is over. it was found not to be valid. we've reached out to many of the members who helped to design this. this has all been talked about over scores of meetings. we have a list of things we would like to work out for interviews, ongoing use, programs for seniors, cross-city benefits. there is a lot of stuff going on. we're very interested. we are neighbors. i have been here 42 years. we're very interested in having a happy community. >> could you address the question raised in terms of what happens to the project during the america's cup and what your plans are during that time? >> we are actively involved in
supporting america's cup. we are are active in trying to get it here. the numbers for construction and mitigation measures are all in the environmental impact report. broadly speaking, there are two phases. next fall, we will have the ac 45 boats. the big boats will be here in october of 2013. correct me if i am wrong. our excavation is six months. if we get through all of the process, by the time we get through all of that, we will be in construction sometime in the summer of. it is a six-month process. we will be well out of the ground. all of the earth moving will be done long before the cut. we have pledged not to have any
construction anywhere on the site during any race days. there is an exit that will only be during the day. it does not have to be used. there will be no impact. city planning has looked at this. there is an agreement with the america's cup people. they are huge proponents of it. they are not going to allow any disruption of their cut. -- cup. >> as i understand the process, the next stage, the project goes before the planning commission for review of the eir at the beginning of january? >> we are during the planning commission will likely hear the item for review. there is associated issue with the shattering impact study --
that would all be on january 19. from there, we go back to you for your approval. we would then proceed [unintelligible] >> ok. anything else? >> thank you very much. >> informational presentation and staff directions to respond to proposed legislation to amend the planning code and zoning map sponsored by the board of supervisors president david chu. >> good evening. i am with the ports planning and development division. i am here to provide for you an overview and informational briefing on a piece of proposed
legislation sponsored by supervisor and president david chiu on the planning code and zoning map. we have been working with the supervisor's office. we have been working with them and planning department staff as well. it was presented to the planning commission last month in october. that was really the first public hearing before the public to start to understand what the proposal was. we tried to jump on board. it is a broad piece of legislation. there are over 200 different amendments peppered throughout the planning code. most of it does not deal with the waterfront areas. i am not really in a position to speak to the full scope of it. we have tried to focus it to the
controls that would reduce that we wanted to bring to your attention and to the stakeholders attention about what the proposals are. there are some comments and forward steps on how to address some particular issues in a proposal that we otherwise think it's quite a masterful effort to try and advance sustainable development in san francisco. the staff report, we have tried to outline the issues in some detail. what i would like to be able to do is give you an overview about what the issues are, what the staff analysis and proposed refinements are that we would like to work on with the planning department and supervisor's office are in advance of further public hearings scheduled for the planning commission. the planning commission looks to
have another public hearing on this possibly with preliminary staff recommendations on december 15. they do not anticipate taking action on this until january. if the planning commission takes action, my understanding is that it is advisory to the supervisors and the sponsoring supervisor for their consideration. the legislation would transcend going into the board of supervisors' committee and board hearing process. there are many steps along the way. we think we can give you an overview of the broad issues, work with our stakeholders. we hope to promote public understanding so that they can also participate in the process. as a general background, you
have the waterfront land use plan as your master policy document for land use along the waterfront. when the plan was being developed, the port was working with the planning department at the time. we were looking at how the development of the plan policies and waterfront plan compared with those in the city's general plan, compared with the planning code and zoning map at the time. by the time we finished with the waterfront land use plan, the staffs were pretty well informed as to where there were areas in the city planning that should be updated to reflect all the work done. in the planning code, zoning map, in general plan, those policies and regulations of line with what is promoted in the waterfront plan. in the time i have been at the port, we have not had a
situation where we have a disconnect between projects that the port is trying to move forward on the waterfront falling out of step with what the city's objectives are. the proposed planning code changes touch upon some many different issues. it is not entirely clear that we can have a handle on what the implications of some of these changes are. what we really go to is looking at the foundation that already exists. what are the issues that rise to the surface in this legislation? are there ways in which we can try and address them now so that we can avoid conflict later on? with respect to the current process, a large part of what we want to have recognized by the public is the fact that there is
language that recognizes the port commission's authority and public trust mission that the port must carry out. in general, the city controls and land use controls are consistent. there may be information where the burden and responsibility of the port commission may have to take precedence. that is recognized for port properties between fisherman's wharf and china basin. at the time the plan was approved, the northern half of the waterfront was the place where most of the change was expected. there was an effort to be explicit about that. the peers between fisherman's wharf and china basin are in one of three existing special use districts. waterfront district number one contains all of our historic piers.
number three contains all of the seawall lots. there are controls that recognize the public trust responsibilities. there is existing language in the code that also establishes a city waterfront design review process. the planning department, the mayor's office, the port all make appointees to the advisory committee that has reviewed all of the port projects to promulgate recommendations to balance the design objectives of the plan consistent with the policies of the city general plan and zoning map. that is a framework that exists now. the number of issues we have teased out are quite a few relative to the number of changes proposed.
they deal with four things essentially. one is for parking lots on the seawall lots between broadway and fisherman's wharf, those are zoned c2 parking lots. those are proposed under this legislation as a non-permitted use. today, they are permitted use. it is proposed to be non- permitted. that would be for an intimate -- interim five-year time, there would be an allowance for that use to continue. at the end of the five years, that use would be terminated. port staff has raised to the planning department the concerns around the prohibition of that use. we're not trying to keep parking lots forever here.
but until they can be developed to a higher and better use for the waterfront plan, they are a very important financial basis of the ports portfolio if not a land use purpose. i know some would debate the merits of parking itself. in particular, they generate over $4 million a year in revenue. the notion of being able to just terminate that use after five years with no clear indication of the next use and whether it could replace that financial purpose, we have applied that as a problem. for waterfront developments overall, we are trying to get parking off of the peers and move if a planned. -- moved it upland.
there are plans to speak to opening up the waterfront to pedestrian-oriented activities and moving cars and parking upland. the seawall parcels are the only ones controlled for that purpose. when we have projects like the exploratorium or other things with legitimate parking needs, those upland sites become critical to how we can balance meeting those needs. for those purposes, we have opposed the change in the status of parking from permitted to non-permitted use. we have talked about this with the supervisor's office, the planning department. they have recognized there is this particular issue that applies to the port's
responsibilities. they would like to work with us on making changes to take away that prohibition. we would like your direction and support to continue that work. with your direction today in making proposed changes to the planning to address those issues. with respect to the embarcadero road way, under these controls it would be designated as a scenic street. i think all of us agree to that. one thing that goes with the designation is also a proposed prohibition -- a required conditional use authorization that would be triggered if there is a change introduced along the east side of the embarcadero against the prominent.
we think there are better ways to address that concern. we understand the concern is to protect and advance the pedestrian value of the promenade and avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. for our tenants and businesses, the embarcadero is the only means by which people can do their business. there is legitimate parking and access required for loading. the notion of having a conditional use requirement for tenants to have to secure to be able to move items, we did not think it would be the most effective means of controlling a problem. instead, we are proposing curb
cuts and impacts on side streets of major projects. that is the context in which these conflicts come to play. that is a more appropriate way of trying to address how the curbs, streets, and sidewalks should be a good interfaced with the project. we propose that the waterfront design review process be expanded to include an address of the adjacent street areas that may be located in the project is located along the embarcadero. we think that is a more holistic way of being able to address those concerns. with respect to the waterfront design review process