Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 5, 2010 7:30am-8:00am PST

7:30 am
underlying zoning permits uses. in this case, it doesn't specify how often entertainment is closed, it relies on underlying districts, rc3 and 4, and there is also a clause that doesn't talk about uses but they say you should determine whether uses are permitted in these districts by looking at the nearest neighborhood commercial district and it regulates that use that's how it should be located in this area. in this instance along van ness, you have a big strip of retail that has a more coherent look to it than the neighboring nc districts, so when you are applying chromes for what happens on van ness eve you are looking at different districts with varying controls. this is something that the department has pointed out to you is an issue through an
7:31 am
error. it was changed to this, referred to as the nc district in 2008, prior to that change, it referred to the c-2 district which is more come patible what we feel is appropriate on van ness. that's what we recommend that we make this change to go back to riverring to the c-2 district so we have the coherency and controls along this area. this modification is tangentially related to this legislation. it has taken a longer course, we have received two comments on this legislation, one comment was just delivered to you this morning from the california music and culture association and they are concerned about the actual substance of this ordinance and whether entertainment should require a c or not. the other comment we have received is from livable cities and they are concerned about our recommended modification.
7:32 am
they would prefer not to go back to the c2 district because they feel that is a little out of date and that the nc district would be more appropriate. so let me tell you about our recommended change and let me also say if you don't feel like the mood identification needs to be incorporated this week, that's something we can wait. we have another piece of legislation coming before you next week and we can consider and do a little bit more look into it and talk to you next week if that's your preference. but in this case we feel it would provide the coherency to the district and we have interpretation is that refer to both nc and c-2, so there's discrepancy about the control is currently in the definition of the rc district. it says commercial uses in this area should be permitted as described in the c2. so that's inconsistent with other places in the code where it refers to the nc district. so we feel there are a number of things pointing towards the
7:33 am
which 2. and also you have should know that since we have made this change about whether the underlying zoning should refer to the nc districts, or the c2, we have only processed two conditional use authorization by this commission and both of those were approved, so there for we feel that the controlled that would allow this permissively are appropriate. and as mr. barns prescribed, the ordinance will be at the last use committee next week, so your recommendation is important today so you may have an opportunity to weigh in on the legislation. that concludes my report -- oh, one other thing, whether we are referring to the underlying nc or c2 only affects whether the uses would be permitted in this area. the other controls that go along with nc districts do not necessarily apply, it's only
7:34 am
whether the uses are permitted or not permitted and that is based on a decision made by the zoning administrator. he has indicated that would be his decision and he is available today if you have any questions about that particular decision. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. president miguel: i have one card on public comment, tom radulovich? good afternoon, executive director of liveable city. we are not here to speak to the legislation. the issue is rezoning every rc district in town. it's part of the staff recommendation that we staple on that switches from the nc controls for residential uses back to the c2 control. you have's got an ordinance
7:35 am
that's going to deal very directly with this same question that's going to be heard before you next week. we've been looking forward to the staff report on that and see what they think and what the compareson is between the two districts. but there's broad-reaching implications of this, but you need to understand, formula retail controls is one, every nc has them. it's defined as a use. so if you go back to c2, which doesn't of formal retail controls, those could be lifted in broad swaths of the city, not just van ness but the tenderloin, pacific, golden gate, etc. the other is use size limits, you know, again, we agree where the department that borrowing the controls, whether those be permitted uses, or permitted nonresidential use sizes from the adjacent districts is not a good idea. and then c2 is a pretty crusty
7:36 am
old district. it predates from the 1980's and predates mixed use districts. it has controls in it that needs looking at. one of the problems covers very, very different parts of the city, stones town, executive park and the northeast water front. it's hard to write a con here rent set of controls that make sense for it. of course a lot of those areas are very, very unlike places like the tenderloin or lower n ab hill, that are very transit oriented, fine gained and small scale. so this ordinance is going to deal what should be the permitted uses and we are asking you not to staple it on to this ordinance, and let the supervisor's ordinance move forward and take this up next week. there's other things too, driving uses, we were talking about queuing, and in most walkable areas, those create a
7:37 am
big problem. those are principally permitted in a c2 district, you could end up with a 30,000 square foot drive-thru taco bell at the corner of mason and pacific. i don't think that's the appropriate use, if you do, you have the right ordinance in front of you. in you don't, and you think maybe let's look at those rc districts, and find the appropriate use size limits and range of uses then we ask you take this out of the staff recommendation and take it up next week, thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> sioux lester. i would like to follow up on what tom just said. i have been dealing with trying to figure out c2 zoning in another area, namely the northern water front. c2 zoning is leftover sites takes are left over from the downtown plan and left over from
7:38 am
the neighborhood commercial controls. those both went through in the 80's. massive rezoning. and there were areas left over. the other remnant that you mostly dealt with was the cm zoning. they have weird sections in the code that apply. the height limits are strange in there and you have to go through all of -- pardon me it's not the height limits, it's the f.a.r. limits, at the very end of f.a.r. is nc2 that is closer to a c3 than to ner, 10-1, the highest f.a.r. in the city. so i have been trying to figure out how to eliminate c2's around the city, as i'm dealing with various areas. it is way backwards to go back to c2. i believe the c2's were
7:39 am
created in the, oh, i was going to say 60's. i think they were the 60's, before i was dealing with the planning commission, which was 1969, c2 existed. it's an ancient thing. it has a very high parking requirement. you don't want to go anywhere near c2. it is more trouble than it is worth. so i ask the staff maybe to pull up a map and just said where are all the c2's? they will be in weird places and there are c1's that are even weirder. we've mostly been getting rid of them on eastern neighborhoods. don't go backwards to c2 for anything, please. thank you. president miguel: thank you. additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon commissioners, i am terrence allen speaking to you as a resident and industry
7:40 am
member of the entertainment industry and one of the founding members of the california music and culture association. in communication with the supervisor's office recording the underlying intent of this legislation, the california music and culture association came to understand that it was, the intent was the notification process so that residents and other merchants who inhabit the area around a potentially new entertainment use would be adequately notified and woof an opportunity to weigh in. i want to bring to this body's attention there are two notification processes that already, sift for such a use. the first includes a mailing. the radius of 100 feet. it's mandatory when you apply for your liquor license. the second is a mandatory posting by the entertainment commission that requires a large posting be displayed in the front of the building where this proposed entertainment use is
7:41 am
for 30 days prior to the hearing, notifying of the time and date of the hearing so that public comment and other written comments can be submitted in advance. it's the intent of this legislation is to improve on that notice rather than attaching a cu process to this change of use to entertainment, we would suggest that the legislation enhance the notification process that is already in existence at the entertainment submission so this mailing could be done there. the reason for that is the entertainment commission will not accept any application for entertainment, other entertainment uses had until the planning department has signed off that it is a principal and permitted use or that it has
7:42 am
been permitted through a cu process. it tacks on the potential of a year or whatever the c.u. process may entail. the time, the money, and in many instances, landlords are very unwilling to give an open-ended time period where free rent would be available. so what you have is, by the intent of this legislation, notification, but the practical reality will be the turning down of entertainment uses because of the cost and time that's going to be involved in this additional step. so i would urge this commission to think seriously about that intent and perhaps make a suggestion back to the supervisor that the intent of notification can be done much more elegantly in another way and not involve your department in a time-consuming process that actually will discourage the addition of entertainment to already existing uses.
7:43 am
thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, good afternoon, chris shulman, small business commission. firstly, the small business commission legislation and policy recommended approval of this ordinance as originally drafted. so my comments will not speak to the van ness other entertainment zoning. in regards to the staff recommendation on applying c2 zoning to the rc districts, the commission recognizes that the current policy of borrowing nc controls is problematic and we support revisions. however, the small business commission staff is concerned that applying c2 zoning controls in rc districts may be problematic if it lists the condition that formula retail
7:44 am
requires conditional use. we ask that whichever way you choose to go, be it c2 our nct3 that you ensure it requires a conditional use authorization. i wanted to note that the small business commission did vote to recommend approval of the commercial parts of the controls which you will hear next week when they approved that ordinance, they did not that it would apply the formula retail controls and also noted the use site limits, we appreciate you taking our freed back into consideration. president miguel: thank you. additional push comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. vice president olague? vice president olague: , i guess i wanted to gee ahead and support the comments of mr. radulovich and miss hester, and also, the small business
7:45 am
commission has a similar screw on this. so i would rather wait -- pull that out and discuss it next week when we see this other legislation but it seems to be that applying the c-2 to nonresidential uses might be something that requires further discussion. so -- and then of course we heard from a member of the public, mr. allen who mentioned the thing of noticing. i hope those discussions will continue with the supervisor's office. blue i was just -- but for sure i would go ahead and support everything at this point with the exception of that c2 discussion which can wait a week. but i guess mr. barns just wanted to check in with you on where your conversations are aren't stuff. >> it is the intent of the supervisor to extend notice but also the intent to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to weigh in.
7:46 am
we think that the planning department provide is that opportunity around the specific locations. one discuss we had was the idea of doing a process where it's not conditional use, but maybe people could file for a dr. as we move forward, we would ask that we recommend approval of the conditional use requirement, but remain opening to talking about other different approaches that provide notification without the cost of a cu. >> great. so i am going to go ahead, then, and move, including the lack that mr. barns just sort of read into the record, encouraging continued conversations between the supervisor's office and meshes of the entertainment condition. but to also pull out the staff recommendations, regarding nonresidential uses and rc districts until next week.
7:47 am
president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions for mr. barns. i guess the first is twofold. on the issue of the cu, did any discussion ensue in the supervisor's office about having something like a mandatory dr, which, perhaps, makes it a little less cumbersome on an applicant for an entertainment as was pointed out earlier, and, yet, still, it's a matter of public process, but, perhaps, not so much expense involved, and also a little lower ceiling for approval. >> absolutely. just by way of example, the laurel inn also in our district had a deejay go into their bar, and no one objected and no one filed the dr, we are looking at the entertainment community in a way where the use would be approved, whether that's a mandatory dr.
7:48 am
it's a good comment. commissioner antonini: that's why i would like to see this evolve further before we make our recommendation. with a mandatory d.r., it happens whether anybody from the neighborhood or not speaks against the thing, it still is going to be adhered by the planning commission, so it will be a matter of public comment. my other question is on the c2 zoning. i sort of see van ness as kind of an extension in some ways, a major boulevard marketed to the east. and that might be the appropriate zoning for that to be in this particular instance. can you comment on that? >> absolutely. supervisor alioto pier would share your view that the c2 controls are appropriate. about that said, there are other districts in the rc's and it remains a complicated issue but
7:49 am
relative to van ness the supervisor would share your view. there seems to be a lot of willingness to work together to figure that out. whether it happens in our legislation or something else, we are confident that everybody is committed to fixing what they identify as a real problem. commissioner antonini: thank you. i have a few problems. i am not quite sure whether c2 is appropriate, but probably more appropriate than the adjoining neighborhood commercial, which is so specialized for the little neighborhood things that are there and i think we need greater flexibility on van ness and we already have a special use district that has certain requirements that are fairly stringent. also, mr. barns, maybe you could add in something else, there's been this mention of formula retail but this doesn't deal with that anyway. there's no guarantee that you are going to have a cu on formula retail eastern no matter what type of zoning you have in
7:50 am
here. >> that would be our view, that when san franciscans look to put controls in neighborhood commercial areas, there was an understanding that the van ness corridor was not one of those. it wasn't our motivator in working on this legislation or talking to your staff. commissioner antonini: yeah, and my memory is when that came up, it was for isolated parts in san francisco and virtually every place, except for the ct, or the c-3. i think there's a limit to which we can go on these things. but, anyway, i would probably not support the presentupport t. it may be advisable to continue both items. are we on a time clock on this? >> supervisor alioto-pier's term ends in january. we were going to land use on
7:51 am
december 14, and if the commission wanted to talk about next week, we could take that into account before any final board vote and take that into account before the committee. we could share with you come up with next week if that is the interest of the commission. commissioner antonini: i might suggest that we continue the entire item until next week as part of our discussion. does that make sense to you? >> commissioners, if you are asking me, i think you may want to weigh and on the entertainment uses of the conditional use because she may lose your capacity to wait in that on that item. if you are concerned about the formula retail controls, there has been legislation that requires the c.u. . for the special use district for formula retail. the question that were racing was what happens in other
7:52 am
districts. if you are referring to n.c. or if you are referring to c-2, where there are not formula retail controls. i think that question is moot because formula retail is not considered a use. we would not be looking to article 7. formula retail is a special control that applies if it is in an actual n.c. district or if it is in a special use district like this. commissioner antonini: okay, thank you. i think from what i am hearing, we have sort of bifurcated, from some degree, where we would be voting on whether we were in support of the c.u. for any entertainment uses but we are passing on the zoning but we could take that up next week as part of our discussion that
7:53 am
deals with broader areas. that might be ok. my only misgivings are whether the c.u. is too high a bar to pass on this. that might give a little problem. i like the supervisor's idea very much, and mr. barnes, could i ask one more thing? the discussions will continue regardless of our vote as to what type of controls to have? >> absolutely, the supervisor remains committed to the vibrant business community. commissioner antonini: in deference to supporting the supervisor, i will probably vote for this, but i would like to see a look at mandatory d.r. instead and working with the entertainment commission to may be cut down on some of the cost and process, too. commissioner borden: i would tend to agree with commissioner antonini regarding a the d.r. as
7:54 am
opposed to the c.u. i would love at some other time if we could maybe look at the definition of other entertainment uses, because i think that is also something that is controversy all. if a bar wants to put in a pool table, is that and other entertainment use? obviously, the supervisors don't have time, but i would love a further examination of those issues because a lot of them are not very big establishments and they could not even put in major-sized items. i am not comfortable with the rezoning of the c-2 because i do not know the implications of that, and i appreciate what you explained here. the one thing i am not clear on, the suggestion of how that would change the r.c. district.
7:55 am
it is the goal to change those around the city? >> yes, it is to clarify and go back to the way the controls were up to 2008. this was something the department did also 1996. we realized it was a little out of date and we wanted to modernize that. after we did that, we realized that was an error. what that does is it makes all of the restaurants prohibited along van ness and makes all of the existing resident -- existing restaurants nonconforming uses. that cannot seem inappropriate. we tried it again because we did this 12 years ago and it did not work then or now. whether we go to something different, i think we need to look at that again and come up with a bad recommendation that the nearest -- come up with a better recommendation than the nearest n.c.
7:56 am
commissioner borden: and if we could have a map of the districts that would be affected by the legislation, that would be helpful as well. so we could see the overlay of the existing controls, based upon the latest n.c. district and what would happen. i will support the supervisor on this legislation, but i rather that we do two things, look at doing a the d.r. and the other entertainment uses definition so it is not onerous on somebody who owns a bar and wants to put in a pool table or have a disk jockey or whatever it is. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: am i the only one who is totally confused? president miguel: no. commissioner sugaya: i don't
7:57 am
think anyone in the audience understood anything we were just talking about. it would help if we had some illustrations. i think if we had a metrics comparison, so we could understand what exists and what is proposed, that would be helpful -- if we could have a matrix. president miguel: i agree. i think if we are talking about districts that are somewhat confusing and disparate, if we have some type of mapping on them, sometimes at -- some type of comparison because of the series of overlapping controls, it is very difficult to understand what is and what is not allowed and how something becomes allowed. i am in full agreement with the supervisor borden at the other entertainment definition, as it now stands, is a bit ridiculous,
7:58 am
and has been for some time. i don't know if it gives a problem to the entertainment commission, but it has given problems to this commission and also to the public, without question. iand i would also be in support of the d.r. rather than the c.u. it is a better way to go, simpler, easier to understand. normally, of a like the whole thing to be rezoned until we looked over everything as a complete package. however, i believe the way this is formed right now, it will not hurt the things. therefore, i would be in support of it. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: could we not modify it a little bit to just approved c.u.?
7:59 am
or other controls as agreeable with the supervisor and entertainment commission? could we modified that the so it is not pushing one particular thing? second? ok, so the motion has been changed a little bit. we would approved conditional use or other land-use regulations or approval regulations for entertainment uses on van ness avenue, in conjunction with the wishes of the supervisor and the entertainment commission. secretary


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on