Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 6, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PDT

3:30 pm
either in favor or opposed to the project itself, aside from the fact that i don't dig any action is going to be taken, that does not jeopardize our ability to be participants in the hearing of the appeal, does that? >> that is correct. the question before the board considers the adequacy of the eir and not the actions related to the project. supervisor wiener: how about a conditional use appeal? by the way, have no agenda here. i cannot stand the rules that we are not allowed to take a position on projects that impact are district or the city. i think the california law is really screwed up. the rules are what they are and i want to make sure we have clarity.
3:31 pm
i know the rules are all looser with them eir appeal. i understand the appeal of conditional use was filed, so is that different from what we are permitted to do as individual supervisors? >> the conditional use appeal pertains to the act of a specific project itself, whereas what is before the land use committee today is a special used district that would allow or be able to facilitate the project but does not go to the actual details of the project the way conditional use does. supervisor wiener: individual members may give opinions without -- >> yes. supervisor mar: after the 20% of the homeowners are residents are verified, that comes to the
3:32 pm
full board on june 28th, as the process? >> i'm not sure about the date. the clerk may be familiar with what the date might be. >> i believe the conditional use is on the 28 and the eir is on the 14th. supervisor mirkarimi: i think the president of the board is trying to line up right now. the technical amendments have been circulated, colleagues. , if you like these are coming from the city attorney. on page one, lines 2321, the language has been changed from will not have a negative impact on the environments provided under sequa , to say that the ordinance does comply with it. page two, lines 1 through 2, ab. it provides a space for that motion and 3, the city attorney
3:33 pm
corrected some section numbers which were out of sequence. those amendments are for your consideration. supervisor wiener: thank you mr. chairman and thank you to everyone who came up to testify on all sides. it is always taking a big part out of people's day to sit through what can often be a long hearing. thank you. i just want to comment -- putting aside the merits, which will dispose of -- our want to comment on the unfortunate, and i think unnecessarily toxic dynamic that has formed around this project. everyone i have spoken to universally agrees that we are in desperate need of housing for
3:34 pm
transition-aged youths and i know from my inexperience over years and years in my district and my neighborhood with the lgbt community, we see transition ag is to do not have access to services, housing and we see the problems that result from those used and our community as a whole. i spend a lot of time in the budget process trying to make sure our services are fully funded. there is also good support for this location as a location opprobrium for housing transition-age use for the reasons we have heard and we have also heard that the opponents of the project are willing to accept a pretty significant increase in density.
3:35 pm
there seems to be not be a consensus that a consensus is appropriate here. somewhere along the way, the atmosphere soured. we've seen a lot of unnecessary demonization. i was very saddened to see demonization of our colleague, supervisor farrell, in an article that appeared last wednesday. i have heard some other demonization of our colleagues as well and i think that has been very unfair. supervisor farrell has been unending amounts of hours trying to resolve this, obviously unsuccessfully. but he has done so and has done so with the absolute best of intentions and he should get credit for that. i was saddened to see some of
3:36 pm
the inferences being generated about him. although there are always a variety of motives among neighbors who are protesting a project, i have spoken to a number of neighbors and have never gotten the sense that they do not want transition-age youth in their neighborhood or they do not want people of diverse backgrounds and their neighborhood, which i know i have heard that inference as well and i do believe by a large neighbors who are protesting this, is really about the size of the project. i don't think any of us should find that surprising, given some of the appeals that come to this board over putting it back on the back of the house or replacing a 10 foot by 10 foot wall or building a third bedroom. we know how small projects can be that become nuclear war in san francisco.
3:37 pm
it should not be surprising to anyone that there's a dispute about a building of this size. i also think booker t. washington has been unfairly characterized by some because comparing it to other kinds of for-profit development is where i know and i am 100% confident that this project is being put forth by people who want to help these use and they should be applauded for doing that and being passionate about it. i would just encourage everyone to tone down the rhetoric. this is a land use dispute coming to this board and it will be resolved in this is an important project. i certainly believe that and i know a lot of people believe it and i am confident it will come to a good resolution. i move that we for this to the board without recommendation.
3:38 pm
supervisor mirkarimi: i am more than happy to speak last. supervisor mar: i would like to make sure a supervisor cohen has an opportunity to speak. there are divided sides in this issue and a motions are in flames and people often are talking past each other rather than trying to find a balance and compromise. i don't see the proposal by the neighborhood organizations and others as a compromise if the major stakeholder, in particular, the booker t. washington community center and their board were not kind of in alignment with the so-called compromise. i do see the neighbor's as having significant concerns. i had good conversations with the planning commissioners and residents from both sides and visited the community service centers to see the wonderful
3:39 pm
faces of the children there and others served by the amazing 100 your organization. i see the concerns as significant and share some of them. i also view as commissioner run miguel mentioned that this is a transitional block space that is not necessarily a residential neighborhood as some have characterized it. i see it as a social justice issue as some have framed it, in that the nine additional units that are the difference between the 55 -- the 50-minute, 55 foot proposal as opposed to the 41- unit, 45 foot proposal. the nine additional units are about people's lives and could
3:40 pm
help save an additional 50 young people from falling into the prison industrial complex for the system which i don't want them to. i see this as a human issue as well as just the numbers before us. when i first asked for the numbers about whether the 45 foot so-called compromise could work, i was expecting to get the numbers right away. it is unfortunate we just got them today from the mayor's office of housing, but i am convinced after hearing the presentation that the $500,000 to $1 million it would cost to promote the so-called compromise is something that would pull away from housing from other vulnerable use and i don't see it as a wash and i think it's
3:41 pm
costly -- the so-called compromise would take money away from housing that could serve critical views. i am hoping to watch this move forward as the appeals come forward and i know we are supposed to weigh the information as it comes to us. i appreciate the comments today and i'm in a much better understanding of the proposal now. i still hope the project sponsors will consider the concerns of said neighbors adjacent to the project and at least consider some of those concerns raised by a number of the neighborhood groups as the appeals move forward. supervisor mirkarimi: the genesis of how i actually arrived at this particular seat is out of professional courtesy, i decided to sign on as a co- sponsor to supervisor farrell who took the lead in advancing
3:42 pm
the 55 foot proposal that he had been blessed by the planning commission. that was essential. i was certainly looking at had provided what ever support to his leadership on this particular proposal. i thought that was exactly the right direction, i thought it was aimed on behalf of both the communities and the project design by the booker t. family. i believe it was consistent with the intention of his predecessor. i was surprised and had communicated my surprise that the proposal in the compromise had been downgraded and that struck concern and caution with me, which is why we're here today. i do not want to lose sight of what the original premise was, which had been deliberate and on
3:43 pm
and approved by the planning department. what deviated from whatever the course of action was is why we are now hearing of concerns that may have not been best manage or, aided by neighbors. but it is the project that has gone through quite a sinewy process of city hall, both imbedded by planning department staff, the commission, and had enlisted the attention of me and the number of our colleagues over many months. that aside, based on process and procedure, booker t. is an invaluable community center. as they are coming close to celebrating their centennial, and based on the demographic changes of this particular grid of the city, many of those
3:44 pm
catalyzed by the missteps of urban renewal, we are starving for the kind of facility that can accommodate that level of demographic change, while at the same time use that half acre parcel to smartly build the kind of housing that it tends to the overarching need as transitional use housing and affordable housing in an area that arguably we can often say should or should not be able to accommodate, whether it is 41 units or 50 units of housing. this is a strong corridor of mass transit arianna and i believe it's only going to get better because many of us believe in the trends of first policy and the one that intersects a particular part of our city. i'm trying to be sensitive to the concerns the neighbors have articulated and i will
3:45 pm
underscore the point that there has to be a level of collaboration. if it has been missing in the last page of the consideration, and going to ask those leaders in all communities look to how we might be able to mitigate some of those concerns as best as we possibly can. otherwise, i think what is before us is speaking to the larger needs of the city as well as the larger needs of the community that has been underserved historically. i am proud of the fact that in district 5 we are doing everything we can to bring community centers online, like hamilton community center which has the best public swimming pool in the city. others within that area -- we rely on booker t., not just in district 5, we are now familiar
3:46 pm
with district 1 and district to as people who go there as well. there is a conglomerate reason why this project should continue in the discussion that has been advanced this far. we realize what is before us in appeal to the board of supervisors, maybe more should come to life and we will be open-minded when that occurs. but at this point, right here and now, let us continue moving forward what is with us and i thank you for your time from all perspectives that have been here today. supervisor mar: i want to thank the young people who came out today. the former foster use, to put a human face on it, and the children from the booker t. washington center and the members of the community who came out to express neighborhood concerns. it gave us a human element the
3:47 pm
difficulty of balancing the needs. supervisor mirkarimi has provided a number of objects -- a number of amendments. can we take those without objection? it has been moved we move this forward without objection. before we get to item number two, can we take a five minute break to clear the room and just come back at 3:52. five minutes recess.
3:48 pm
3:49 pm
3:50 pm
3:51 pm
3:52 pm
3:53 pm
supervisor mar: welcome back.
3:54 pm
we're back from recess. could you call item no. 2? >> or december 2nd -- changing sidewalk with between fremont and harrison street. >> this is a request in conjunction with a development going up at 333 harrison street , also part of the streetscape plan. there is an official 8 foot wide sidewalk currently at the site. it is being widened to 12 feet, and that is going to accommodate new pavers, landscape, new trees and for new transformer vaults. this has been reviewed by the mta. there was concern about the turning radius for trucks in the off ramp, but that was resolved. we're working with planning on
3:55 pm
the whole development area. planning signed off for the sidewalk whitening. we recommend approval of a sidewalk, and respectfully request your approval. supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, can move this forward with our recommendation? kelly have item #3? >> a development agreement for treasure island and it year by buena island for property development. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we do not have a presentation prepared. we are here to insure we are in compliance with the state notice requirements for the agreement. we have been here before on this item as well as the budget from early in may in both cases.
3:56 pm
we're just here to answer any questions and listen to public comment. supervisor mar: colleagues, any questions? supervisor wiener: i wanted to ask you or someone else to explain the concept of the flex the zone. in reviewing them materials, it seemed like the opponents have relied on that phrase to imply the zoning is somehow undefined and random and could be not sufficiently defined. in my review of the materials, as i understand it, flexed the zoning has been used in a number of projects in san francisco, including mission bay. there are still maximum heights for the zoning, but once you
3:57 pm
reach a certain height, it triggers other kinds of bulk and spacing of limitations. i understand the maximum population for treasure island is about 8000 people. once we hit 8000 people, you cannot build any more. >> 8000 units. supervisor wiener: excuse me, 8000 units. once we reach that level, no more could be built. if you could address that and, in particular, how it fits into the eir we are considering. that has been raised that it is not sufficiently definite. >> you will hear more about this tomorrow. i will ask michael too quickly explain this to you. you are right, it has been used before. it is not flexible and has been defined. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
3:58 pm
and with the office of economic and work-force development. i am going to put a couple of diagrams on the overhead. flexed the suns have been used in other areas, as you noted, mission bay, to define zones in which buildings can be built up to a certain height. as you described, there are very specific controls related to the ball, amassing the upper limit of height as well as set back and clearance requirements. there is a very specific set of rules that apply to these towers. what is shown here is the maximum height plan for all of treasure island. i will put up a diagram.
3:59 pm
it is right along the western shoreline of treasure island. there are very limited flex zones which allow towers to be built up to 240 feet. there is a height limit of approximately 65 feet. there are variances were there are town homes adjacent to memorize building and these flex zones will straddle that. a building up to 2 minutes 40 feet could be constructed. -- at a deep -- a building up to 240 feet could be constructed. that would preserve the use -- the views