Transcripts For SFGTV 20100812

and the director and the department want to acknowledge h.p.c. into the planning code and it is time they are recognized in the code and the processes are put in the code. the charter trumps everything and where the charter is silent, we look to the planning code. where there are conflicts, we have tried to eliminate them or answer your processes. and to answer your question it seems to be for now and the near future the one chance to clean up 10 and 11 to conform. however, the director did send out a memo about six weeks ago to the commission and we are starting to have talks with the h.p.c. and there are really maybe a handful designation and major and minor alterations and staff level approval and there are a handful issues that are contentious between different factions. once all that plays out we are willing to bring forward more amendments within however long it takes. and for now this seems to be at least right now the first and only bite of the apple that we're having with 10 and 11. vice president olague: if it is the case that there piece of legislation if the former president peskin acknowledged it is no longer in play, i don't know that for a fact and as far as i know it is still sitting at the board, but i am comfortable with his acknowledgment of that. and then i think that this is something i believe the planning commission should have some input on. and if those conversations started at the h.p.c. level around the more controversial items that were outstanding around demolition and when they do, they should simultaneously hear and as commissioner or president miguel mentioned, i think that ultimately what needs to happen is we need all meet jointly to go and have some public meetings where we can get into some because there might be some areas, maybe more areas of agreement than we suspect and areas we're never going to have agreement on but to have maybe be able to flesh this out before the board takes action on changing these codes. >> if i can clarify, we have not had conversations with the h.p.c. about these issues yet. the memo i sent to both commissions suggested that the strategy should be to present you with policies that the commissions could adopt as a kind of first step rather than full blown legislation. and then that was the proposal for later in this year. but to be clear, wills not specific substantive conversations yet about these issues. and i think everyone agrees with what you said is there is probably a handful of issues that are the kind of collectively the crux of the disagreement. those discussions have not started yet. >> and i think that does need to happen sooner than later. and it that needs to be as much as possible an engaged dialogue with stakeholders and definitely p.c. and h.p.c. and to the extent that learn to synchronize our work, that is the ultimate goal to work not in what is happening is there is a weird power struggle or power play and that is not what i'm interested in. i'm interested in making this work for the city and all the city's priorities and to balance those needs and not one issue always trumping the other or getting into these ridiculous moments. there are ways to work in a very compatible way. i think they would require joint hearings and building up that trust and relationship between the two commissions and having all members of the public also join in the same kind of conversation rather than having a lot of separate conversations where things aren't coming together. that being said, i'm going to go ahead and move we adopt what's in front of us. then to make sure the language on 311 is changed so that the word access and i think that many of the amendments i see here not anything in the past 24 hours and everything that is in front of us since july 11 and including 311 noting language and i am ready to make a motion to move forward with this. >> second. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. >> i am not ready to move forward and there are a lot of questions i need answers to and can take the next hour to go through them i assume. >> i'm here. >> thank you. page 14, line 10, the zoning administrator and all that has been struck. could i have an explanation of that please? >> that was a request by the former zoning administrator that deals with section, excuse me, with section 185, continuance of nonconforming provisions and this is a weird section. when the planning code was updated several decades ago and when it is continuously updated, any use that is basically not permitted in the new zoning and becomes a nonconforming use and there was an intent decades ago to phase out and require nonconforming uses to shut down. and part of that was to mandate that the zoning administrator has to give notes and dates of expiration of when the businesses needed to shut. he has to do it every four years. we have not been doing this and the city policy has changed to allow them to continue and he ask we have this provision struck from the planning code. commissioner sugaya: this seems to me to be a planning issue since it is a recommendation from the zoning administrator that was just presented to us as a policy matter and not just cleanup. the language that's been used to present all of these amendments and changes within 470 pages of code has been couched in terms of cleanup as everybody has said. and has been described as a way to address clerical errors and things that didn't get published right in the code, etc., but here is an example to me, i think, where the commission should discuss whether or not this particular notification process is still proper or not proper. page 23. we have b, action upon such uses and the lines that are struck out say shall be by the planning commission. is that something that we don't have jurisdiction over anymore? or is it something that should also be discussed like the last item? >> this actually is in conjunction, these changes are in conjunction with the legislation that was introduced this week regarding food carts and temporary use. we had a working group internally in the department to look at temporary uses with the former zoning administrator to the current acting zoning administrator and several other planners. and we wanted to update this section. so temporary uses can be authorized, may be authorized by the zoning administrator as currently it is able to do. we did strike out the portion about the planning commission. i believe more legislation will be coming in front of you within the next 90 days that will take care of that and put it back in front of the appropriate section. it is not removing any power of the planning commission. >> thank you. i would soon leave it in if it is coming back with more corrective legislation again. and i am pointing out where there are language changes that don't appear to be necessarily cleanup legislation and the same thing is true in section 209.3. and section 303 and 309.1 and 309.15, 309.12, 703.2a. and other play in the code. and i think the planning commission should take into account these are not just changes that are being proposed that are merely cleanup but have substantive policy issues and apparently no hurry here and i don't see why there can't be discussion on items that commissioners like myself prinking up in the interim period. and unless we're not under any 30-day deadline with the board of supervisors are we at this point? as as that is my reason for not supporting the present motion. >> and to hold this over from the presentation from ms. sullivan, i agree with the maker of the motion and i don't believe there's any changing of the lawer or any significant changes that are not deletions that are inappropriate or repositioning of items in the document. but the other thing that's also important, my understanding is, if there is the desire in the future for either the board of supervisors, planning commission, or where appropriate historical preservation to make substantive changes, that could be done or probably should be done. and so i'm in flavor of moving it forward at this time. >> commissioner olague. vice president olague: i want to encourage that, again, i think that i have said this loud enough, but we do need to have joint hearings with h.p.c. to talk about 10 and 11. we really, really do. and i think that is where this is going to have substantial conversations that will take place. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: it is interesting to me when i haven't heard any controversial issues come before us that involve h.p.c. decisions and ice versa. vice president olague: i think we're working very well so far together and it's been great really having this issue where it is. it's just article 10 and 11, i don't know, maybe there won't be any controversy and we'll have 100% agreement and that would be a beautiful first in san francisco land use politics. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i think commissioner sugaya did point out a couple of things that were interesting but i think that what the cleanup and part of the discrepancy is is there is actual practice in things we're doing in the code that we nevada do and are there. we could argue perhaps we should actually do them, but i guess it makes more sense to have the code clear on things we actually do and make sure that everything is in clean with all the different plans that we have out there as opposed to waxing that we keep things and provisions in the code for the sake of the fact they are already there knowing that there's not intent to do those thing. and that makes a lot of sense and some of the things that commissioner sugaya pointed out were things that were not in the existing code and that is why it seems like a substantive change but not if at all called policy and we can have a conviction about whether or not in term of notifications or the things that are brought up here and how we should be acting and we're trying to get better in those areas. and we should focus on that. and for the purpose of the code cleanup, i don't think this is the place to have that conviction. i think it is to have a more substantive conversation later about some of the practices and priorities that we care about in the context of what makes sense to put a policy in place that we would actually be useful and not clutter the code with things that are not really specific to bigger planning issues. when i see you must mail something to this by this date of expiration, it seems overly specific damage in a planning code anyway. >> but that is exactly what the neighborhood groups are complaining about is notification and how that works. so it isn't the code and to say that present practice because it's being ignored should be codfied. seems to be backwards to me without having first discussed it. i give you another example on page 44 and one of the item on line 17 through 21, the notification process for medical cannabis now eliminates individuals or group that have made a written request or notify indicating regarding specific medical cannabis dispenseries. can you tell me where there' been included then? the language under notice just says 300-foot radius. >> tara sullivan, department staff, and this is going to be in attachment c. once the department has determined that the abi willcation is complete and for owners and of courccupants for s than 30 days. and an earthquake mail to interested groups and was a simple omission. >> this is my point. how do we know people said they have read this and didn't strike anybody as being an issue that we should be addressing? that is why i can't vote for this. president miguel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: with the physical design on page 86 the issue of establishing that and the line 18 through 20 and that has been stricken. and when you move on to page 88 on the bulk restrictions, it seems as if the restriction section has been eliminated with the reveference to the project applicant only filling out a form. unless i don't properly understand the language and the change relative to what is of concern to the commission. it might be in the luage, lost in translation here. but myself reading it as a nonlawyer, as a layman, i feel there is something not quite clear. >> commissioner, i would like to point out that that line that you are citing in section 309, we relocated because basically that is saying you have to file an application for section 309 or an exception to bulk per 270 and 272. if you go on to page 89, part d, it says applicant -- we retitled it because it was never clear what the application process was. review subject to this section is triggered by submittal of a 309 application or a building or cite permit. it is the same thing but relocated. >> ms. sullivan, all i am saying is that you are skilled to read this and write it and immediately deed me to where i need to go. and in my position, i read it and say, oops, a major change and you have to go two pages beyond it to find it again and by that time my thread is lost. and there are changes if nothing else and i think it was expressed in this room. that it would have been good to have a blackboard and this is what it is, this is the way we're simplifying it, do you agree, is it clear? most of us are on the laymen end of things as well. i don't have the comfort to see this -- >> commissioner moore, that is why this is here. >> it is not in there. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with a one-word change related to section as the notice in 311. with access. >> that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners moore and sugaya voting against. thank you, commissioners. presid >> we will take the housing element following that. >> the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, we are as the president has announced taking item 10 out of order it is a public hearing on the draft environmental impact report. >> good afternoon. this is the booker t. washington community services center project at 800 presidio avenue. the purpose is to public comment on the draft e.i.r. the subject property is the 22,360 square foot l-shaped lot on the southeast corner of presidio avenue. and the project entails demolition of the existing community center and construction of a replacement center with updated an expanded facilities including a gymnasium and other program areas. in addition to a five-story building volume to the north that would include 47 units of affordable housiintended to serve emancipated foster youth and residents with income up to the 60% of the average area median income level. the project would provide 22 off-street parking places the the planning department preparnd e.i.r. for this project because it would have a significant impact on the environment. the e.i.r. found that the existing community senter is considered an historic resource because it is associated with events, specifically the founding of an african-american institution which has made important contributions to the cultural history of san francisco. demolition of this historic resource is therefore, considered, a significant environmental impact. the draft e.i.r. was reviewed by the hisser toic preservation -- by the historic preservation commission and wassed a quantity pursuant to ceqa and recommended mitigation measure that documents the history of the community center as a cultural institution and to include more information in the e.i.r. about the building architect lloyd gardener and to contain more information related to the e.i.r.'s preservation alternative. at the conclusion of my presentation, i will pass out a summary of these comments to the commission secretary. as described in the e.i.r., there would be a special use district and a reclassification of the site height limit. the e.i.r. includes an analysis of a co-compliant alternative to provide the comparison of potential effects associated with the proposed project and alternative that would not require zoning amendments. commissioners, staff published this draft e.i.r. on june 23 and had a 48-day public review period which closes august 10. for those who are interested in commenting on the draft e.i.r. in writing, they may submit comments to the environmental review officer at 1650 mission suite, suite 400 by august 10. for members at the public today, state your name for the record and the comments will be tran skriend responded to. those who have comment willed receive a copy of the document prior e.i.r. certification or approval or action taken by the board. commissioners, this concludes my presentation, and i am available for questions. president miguel: thank you. i have a number of speaker cards and if i can remind the speakers and those who wish to speak that this is a comment period on the accuracy and completeness of the e.i.r. which was publish ed available to the public obviously. however, the entitlements for the actual project will come before this commission at a later date. and all of those details will then be in play for comment to us. >> good afternoon. i'm gail shecklie. and commissioner, thank you for the chance to address this and i just this morning sent a letter and copied those of you that i did have emails for and i did bring some copies of the letter and i have them here. with my comments. i don't know that all the comments in the letter will pertain particularly to the e.i.r., but i'm for this center. the center needs to be renovated. and i have lived n the neighborhood for many years and our family has lived there since 1974. i have a 15-year-old and he attends basketball games at the center. the length of my house is along the yard of the booker t. and i was very happy to see a play yard put in right outside my kitchen window and really don't even mind the chickens running around. i think that is kind of nice. and i love the sound of the kids and i know some of the kids. what concerns me is the changing of the code to the height of the bulk of the project and the density. as i understand there's also going to be construction down the street at westside. and why all these units need to be built there is beyond my comprehension. i did see that if i was reading it correctly that there was no impact on traffic and transportation which is beyond comprehension. we are so impacted in our neighborhood from muni and right now and many of the people have two cars at least. per unit. it seems to me parking is utmost concern and there should be at least one space per unit. and i'm not even as concerned that aesthetically it doesn't fit in the neighborhood and i'm more concerned that we're going to lose an historic building. the booker t. has been there forever and it's been a great facility. but i'm glad that it will be redone and i would like to see it done within the zoning of our neighborhoods and not be enormous 500% increase space that it' going to be taking. other concerns were addressed in my letter and i'll leave that at that. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> hello. my name is joyce lively and i do have something that i want to leave with you. i'm a c.p.a. and i have been intimately involved in affordable housing for most of my 23 years in san francisco. i was the controller of bridge housing and mid peninsula housing for nearly 13 year. i have personally been involved with the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation, community housing partnership and the late citizen's housing and been in both of them on a regular basis. i have been an officer on the board of directors with the treasure island homeless development initiative and i have been there for over three years. first i want to make sure that people understand my presentation is not about the community center. and it's clearly not abouten issue of having affordable housing in my neighborhood. and i have no issue with the resident population of emancipated youth. we need that in our neighborhood, all of that. my issue is specifically about the housing element and the community is behind supporting the community. and our community is behind supporting the community center. the san francisco city policy set aside a portion of all affordable housing and it is the city policy to set aside affordable housing for either the homeless or those at risk of homelessness which the emancipated youth are. it's very common to have set aside for special needs population and the planning