Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 6, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT

8:30 pm
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 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
8:31 pm
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. 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.
8:32 pm
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. 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.
8:33 pm
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 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
8:34 pm
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 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
8:35 pm
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 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
8:36 pm
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 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
8:37 pm
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 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.
8:38 pm
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 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
8:39 pm
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 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
8:40 pm
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 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
8:41 pm
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 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. supervisor
8:42 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.
8:43 pm
we're working with planning on 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
8:44 pm
early in may in both cases. 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
8:45 pm
for the zoning, but once you 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
8:46 pm
defined. >> good afternoon, supervisors. 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.
8:47 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 --
8:48 pm
the views court pedestrians. on the east side, we allow buildings up to 240 feet. in the island center, there are two additional flex point areas. the location of the icon tower -- one building is allowed up to 450 feet. in these three sons unmentioned, -- three zones i mentioned, we reduced what was previously allowed, up to 315 feet, down to 240 feet. the towers were previously allowed to go up to 450 feet. in response to eir comments, we reduced that to 315 feet and the icon power has been reduced from
8:49 pm
over 600 feet -- tower has been reduced from over 600 feet to 450 p. there will be separation from one building to another to provide light for parks and open space and two preferred -- to preserve views. it sets up a pattern which allows some flexibility. on the left and on the right, 13 towers. we analyzed the visual impact and the affect on parks and open space. this gives you an example of some of that flexibility and specific controls to maximize sunlight and of the use -- and
8:50 pm
views. chairperson mar: supervisor weiner? any other questions? is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? i have one card from libby. if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please come forward. three minutes. is thomas lipp here? if not -- >> thomas lippe represents lippe and wagner. we are one of the appellants of the environmental impact report. mr. lippe had to be excused to work with his colleagues. with regards to tomorrow, he
8:51 pm
asked me to make the following statement to you. the city attorney interprets the administrative code as allowing the committee to oppose this public hearing and forward this matter to the full board without a recommendation. our attorneys disagree. closing is public hearing and forwarding this matter to the board is considering the approval of the project, because it indicates you have reached a closure on this part of the process. this is a matter i think our attorneys will be revisiting with you at some point in the near future. i have materials here for the district attorney. i have also materials for the board members here. supervisor weiner: i am just curious. if we don't forward it to the board, what are we supposed to do with it? >> the proposal would make is
8:52 pm
that you table the matter until tomorrow. typically, no action is taken prior to the appeal being heard by the board. then the clock starts again and that process moves forward. it is unusual in this process that we have moved forward while an appeal is pending. supervisor weiner: i understand now and disagree. we routinely consolidate all matters into one hearing before the board as a matter of efficiency and the convenience of the public, so people do not have to show up multiple times. but thank you for the clarification. >> our experience with the shipyard was slightly different. as i mentioned, our attorneys will revisit this with you later. i am here today to urge this committee to vote no or table the matter until the treasure island eir has been heard. for the last 27 years, we have
8:53 pm
done our best to help the city understand the complexity of this process. i have stood before this committee of the board on numerous occasions over those past 27 years to urge caution when the mayor's office wanted to press ahead for reasons that may in retrospect seem unnecessary. i warned the city that the 1994 memorandum of understanding with the navy was voided because the navy was withholding information on toxic contamination. in 1999, we want the city not to lease a building of the shipyard because it sat on top of a pcb dump. mr. cohen argued we should move
8:54 pm
forward with it. the dump broke the surface and burned from august until april 2000. it caused ongoing cleanup for the next 10 years. we have worked very hard to assure you understand this. in response to comments, the city has stated that the na has accepted responsibility for all the debris found on treasure island, including that related to incineration site 12. on the other hand, article 12 of the economic development conveyance -- i am going to jump ahead. chairperson mar: i would like to ask you to simply try to wrap up, if you can. >> if you look at article 21, the navy says something very different than that. we have a number of cleanup
8:55 pm
projects on the island. this product is unstable, with many unknowns. we are concerned these will vastly modify the project proposal. thank you very much for your time. chairperson mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, the item is before us. i would like to know if there is a motion to move this forward as a committee report to the full board without recommendation. supervisor weiner: so moved. chairperson mar: without objection. thank you, everyone. please call the next item. >> resolution urging the planning commission to incorporate the policies and objectives of the western soma community stabilization policy
8:56 pm
and community plan. chairperson mar: we have a guest from planning. >> good afternoon. ms. rogers from the planning department. this resolution has not been sent to the planning commission. only the ordinances are sent to the planning commission, with a 90-day hold. the department is concerned with the task force. we agree that balanced development is of the utmost importance. the general plan has policies that encourage a balance between affordable housing and market rate housing, as well as a balance between jobs and housing. that said, the department has concerns about the proposed message to reach that balance. before you is a resolution that relies on the community work, with a rigid emphasis on new development. this may bind future planning
8:57 pm
commission or board members from using their discretion to approve what could be potentially a beneficial project. removing that discretion would be a dangerous precedent. a growth ordinance was found to be invalid by the courts. establishing strict controls in such a small geographic area could be problematic. consider the size of western soma and the need of affordable housing, as you have been doing. to give a desired 30% affordability in this area, this area would need to see not only inclusionary housing but project with 100% affordable housing. as you know, these 100% affordable housing projects need to be of a certain size and height to be viable and secure funding. we would like more time to study the parcel size in this area, as well as the parcels likely to be
8:58 pm
developed, and see if there is even enough room to build the needed affordable housing. the small size is not the only potential barrier to help the growth. also, the boundaries here are arbitrary. the boundaries of western soma do not reflect actual neighborhood boundaries. the boundaries are a result of negotiations and lines split through blocks, zoning districts, and streets. chairperson mar: i should mention that we are joined by supervisor jane kim, sponsor of the legislation. after you are done, we will invite her to comment. >> lastly, this metering is contrary to the mechanisms of proper -- prop m.
8:59 pm
this major's office development citywide, which is more appropriate -- meters office development citywide, which is more appropriate. instead of legislating the metering, we would prefer something along the lines of, "the board would urge the planning commission to consider the goals of the western soma task force with an objective of balancing affordable and market rate housing." if not, we request more time to study the issue and discuss alternatives with the community. the director has a meeting with community representatives on june 14. therefore, we would respectfully request a continuance of the resolution until that meeting. chairperson mar: thank you, ms. rogers. supervisor kim: thank you for including me at r