Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Space topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission continues Grand Hyatt plaza overhaul, asks for clearer public‑space tradeoff analysis

San Francisco Planning Commission · March 22, 2007
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners and members of the public raised questions about privatized seating, preservation of public circulation around the Rufusawa Fountain, materials and a calculation that produced an $86,200 in‑lieu fee; the project was continued for design refinement and a revised fee computation.

The commission continued consideration of a Grand Hyatt proposal to rework its plaza — adding terraced seating, planters and a limited privatized outdoor dining area — after lengthy debate about circulation, materials and the method used to compute an in‑lieu compensation payment.

Designers from Gensler and the hotel team presented plans that would terrace the plaza, provide protected public and restaurant seating areas, install canvas wind baffles and retain the Ruth Asawa fountain. The sponsor proposed privatizing up to 20 percent of the plaza surface for restaurant seating and offered an in‑lieu payment of $86,200 to compensate for reduced public open space tied to historic downtown bonuses.

Commissioners and public speakers criticized the apparent small fee relative to the decades‑long value of the original plaza and called for clearer precedent and math. Several commissioners asked that the applicant revise materials, reconsider the extent and location of privatized seating and make sure circulation around the fountain remains generous and public. Commissioner comments also focused on whether proposed precast concrete paving would downgrade the existing brick base.

The commission directed staff and the project sponsor to refine the design, provide a more explicit calculation of the compensation figure and return with revised drawings and material options (May 10 was suggested for the next hearing). The item was continued to permit those changes and a fuller analysis of the public‑space tradeoffs.