tv [untitled] May 5, 2014 6:00am-6:31am PDT
president wu? >> here. >> commission vice president fong? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> here. >> commission borden? >> here. >> commission moore? >> here. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is considering for items proposed for continuiation yawn item no. 1, 2013-1 166t amendment to the planning code sections 303i formula retail and is proposed to continuance to june 5 2014. item 2, case no. 2010.0726x at 20 a1 third street, request for large project authorization is proposed for continuance. and item 2013.0465d at 2479
francisco street has been withdrawn. >> any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> i will move to continue items 1 and 2 to the dates noted on the agenda. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> this is an item for the consent calendar. so i will wait until after. >> there is a motion and second to continue items 1 and 2. on that motion, roll call. (roll call) so move commissioners and that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places you under your consent calendar. all matters listed here constitute a consent calendar. are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a member of commission, the public or staff so
requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the central florida and considered as a separate item. at this or a future hearing, item 4 case no. 2011 about the 1395c at 1763 stockton street and items 5a and 5b requests for office development authorization and conditional use authorization. i do have self speaker cards. >> public comment for the consent calendar to talk about whether these should be on consent? >> commissioner antonini. >> sorry for the interruption, but before we begin the item i want to clarify the item at 660
third street is directly adjacent to a building that i used to own a property, but i no longer own that property and there is no conflict. it had come up in the past and my interest terminated last year as did my other family members and there is no reason why i cannot participate in items 5a and b. >> thank you. so mr. ionin, because we have the cards should we take it off the consent calendar? >> if any speaker is interested in pulling it off consent, which is what i am assuming that they requesting, we'll take it off of consent and have had heard as the first item under the regular item. >> please. >> commissioners there is just the one remaining item under your consent calendar. >> any additional public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve items 5a.
>> just 4. >> no 4 has been taken off. >> no 5a and b have been taken off. >> i'm sorry. yes, i'm going to approve -- moving to approve item 4. >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to approve item 4 under consent, commissioner antonini? aye. >> roll call? so moved commissioners and that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and items 5a and 5b will be heard under regular agenda. >> commissioner moore. >> you included two draft meeting minutes in your packets. we are not hearing them today, but we'll be hearing them next week. i have two copies on april 10 and april 3rd, but they are not
listed. so i assume we keep them for next time around. >> i apologize, commissioners. i believe you had -- let me just confirm this. you actually already adopted them last week. so i apologize they did not need to be included in your package. >> thank you. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you, i just wanted to announce that i had the opportunity to moderate a panel at the apa planning association in georgia, last week. the panel was focused primarily about protecting neighborhood commercial district with an overlay of formula retail and what is happening here in san francisco. we had four panelists, varying from different points of view and it was very well-received. lots of very interesting questions, some challenging questions, but i think it was good for us to have that discussion. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i have a few items. the first is that i need to get
an opinion from staff. i don't need the answer today, but there was an editorial in one of the papers yesterday. i think it was the examiner and the writer stated the opinion, "if a project was voter-approved that the project then did not need environmental clearance and did not have to contribute to a lot of exactions and fees that most projects would." and i'm not sure if it was accurate about that, but that is a very important point that the public should be aware of, because there is a possibility that some projects in the future might require voter-approval pending some electoral platters and if this is the case, that is an important thing to know about. so i will take my answer in the future, if staff could just look into that and let me know if he was right before that. the second item also from the
newspaper, former mayor willie brown i think he was right on target in his column on sunday. he talked a little about the possibility of the city trying to build some large facility large enough to hold capacity of 60,000 to 80,000 with the possibility of the raiders coming. i don't know how realistic that is, but you know, i think that from history, we realize that if you build it, they will come. oakland is a case in point. when oakland built the alameda county council in 1986 they had the raiders and because it was there they attracts the athletics and warriors and for years we not only lost the warriors, but concerts for the lack of facility. so before we rush to demolish candlestick park and not put a replacement, i think we have to take a close look at what the possibilitis are and certainly seems to be a lot of interest for paul
mccartney's concert at candlestick park and a market for the facility that holds 60,000 plus people for the larger concerts. so certainly food for thought. the final thing is report in the paper today that population estimate by the state, san francisco now has 636,000, so we had a nice growth last year in numbers. and our population grew in excess to what would feel would be the case with new units built, but we still built over 2,000 new units and i'm not sure what number that they quoted, but the bad part is that only a small percentage were single-family homes -- i believe 30% were single-family homes and it's a problem with our present situation to find
sites to build the kind of housing that families often want. just out of curiosity, that was an interesting article in today's paper. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> i attended the annual california preservation foundation meeting last week. it was held in sylmar. so it was kind of like going to camp. we had -- i attended one session that had to do with the j program in japan town and it was presented by the department led by steve worthheim and shelly and jonathan and one person from japantown. it was an interesting session and i believe very well-attended. so congratulations to the department. this is a little off-topic,
but in the delta area is a move to declare it a natural heritage area. the legislation is carried by dianne feinstein and boxer and bills are pending in the house and senate. this is a part of the delta that has seen a lot of industrial innovations when the delta was being dredged and levies were being building through ethnic communities who worked on the farms and also built towns and schools and language facilities. so look forward to seeing that materialize. thank you. >> commissioners, if you notice there is someone shadowing me here that i would like to introduce you to christine, who has accepted my offer to join me in the office of commission affairs as the
manager and will be my primary backup if i am not available to attend the hearings. >> christine, welcome. >> item 7, director's announcements. how about we take item 7 after item 8? item 8 commissioners review of past events at the board of supervisors, there is no board of appeals report, nor is there an historic preservation commission hearing report. >> good afternoon commissions, planning department staff here to give you weekly report on the board of supervisors planning and land use activities. they heard an ordinance that would -- is related to production, distribution and repair uses. this ordinance is intended to do a number of things to make it easier to get pdr space and make pdr space more easily approved and workable.
commission heard this ordinance on march 13th and voted unanimously to recommend that the board approve the ordinance with a few modifications. the legislation was reintroduced in april to incorporate your modifications. and at this week's monday hearing there were several public comments in support of the legislation as it was drafted. a few members of the public spoke in support of the legislation, but want to see further modifications made to the cap in the amount of office that would be allowed for small enterprise work spaces. supervisor campos came to the land use hearing and announced he was planning on introducing such a cap when the legislation reaches the full board. supervisor wiener expressed some dismay that some of the public was still advocating for changes even after some compromises had been made to garner their support. all these members of the committee and
supervisor campos spoke favorably and then voted unanimously to send to the full board with positive recommendation. tuesday, at the full board of supervisors' meeting. supervisor tang's small business month was heard. this is the ordinance that incorporates the commission's suggestion that small business fee waiver be offered every may instead of reauthorized and reconsidered every may and this week it passed on final reading. also on first reading at the full board was supervisor yee's medical cannabis dispensary for the ocean avenue nct and this requires conditional use authorization for mcd to locate within 500' of another mcd. and the commission heard this on april 3rd and voted unanimously to recommend approval. this was the first reading of the ordinance and this will back again next week. there were new pieces of legislation that i would like to share with you.
the first is a combination of things. it's planning code amendment, zoning map amendment that would be related to the valley special use district. this ordinance was introduced by the mayor and supervisor cohen, establishing use controls including formula retail controls and building standards, procedural requirements and noticing standards for development in the zone 1 of the visvalley sud and also introduced by the same group was an ordinance urging the planning commission to consider amendments to the general plan to implement this sud. also and finally i would like to share with you a hearing request from supervisor wiener. he is asking for both a hearing and a report from the fire department, the department of public works, and the office of community investment and infrastructure on the proposal to widen certain streets within
the hunters point shipyard and candlestick park development and wants to know why certain departments are seeking to make changes to late in the process and why the departments are requesting to discuss -- i'm sorry, he is also requesting these departments discuss policy rationale for these changes including if and how the better streets plan, the pedestrian safety strategy and vision zero were factored in? and lastly, why the board and the mayor's approval for the these developments was disregarded? so that should be a fun and exciting hearing. that concludes my report unless there are questions. thank you. >> commissioners, in that case, we'll move on. that will place you under general public comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes.
at this time members of public shall address the members of commission within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes. i do have a couple of speaker cards. rd r [ [ reading speakers' names ] >> my name is sue hester. i have an overhead for the
planning commission documents for today's calendar. just the items that i am here for have 800 pages of documents. they are 73 pages for 63rd street. 70 pages in various things for public plaza. 288 pages for 1036 mission. 255 pages for 650 indiana. 196 at 1201 tennessee. they all appear on the public agenda friday, six days before the hearing. and they have no table of contents. none. zero. so the only thing a person like me can do is basically punch "hit all/print all" to find what we want to find. very few of the public have
oversized printers. so although the plans that are provided in there are going to be mini plans, even though you have 11x17 plans. the planning department has with the consent of the commission, and the consent of the office of commission affairs, basically abandoned any two-week report. how do you expect the public to read -- i'm not even dealing with ers -- i'm not dealing with things that i don't care about on this calendar. 800 pages of documents on friday. i attempted to get two-week bindings for both the indiana case, which is also coming back two weeks from now, the public plaza, which is part of the case, which is going to be considered two weeks from now.
and the tennessee case. basically what you have done every time you have adopted the area plan, you have eliminated the informed public, because -- and there is in more effective distribution through the environmental document. the tennessee case, i have requested to be on the list for environmental documents a year-ago and i got a response, i guess, tuesday, with the cadex. so i am just saying the planning commission has a role to play, and if you feel that it is right to un-index documents, why is the staff allowed to not index? so you can find the resolution? you can find the ear?
>> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon president wu and commissioners i'm jill scalsallinas, senior, native san francisco born and raised here and lived here all my life and hope to be here the remainder of my days. i want to wish you all a happy mayday, commissioners. i am here to ask you for the afternoon and the remainder of the year, to set aside the issues of architecture, landscaping and traffic impact and height, bulk and all of these things you deal were on a regular basis weekly. you are all volunteer citizens. you come out of our communities. you were given the privilege and honor of serve on this commission to impact your fellow san franciscans in a positive way and what a better way to do that then providing folks with a good-paying job and you are in a position to do that. i belong to 132-year labor
organization, 132 years generations of members of carpenters local have built this city as far as the eye can see. i'm one of them. i got to raise my kids here and i came in abought a home here, which is paid for. i am an anomaly. we just lost 100 members in the last and a half at a time that we are in the greatest construction boom. you have 37 cranes in the air, never seen such construction and yet san franciscoans continue to languish in the black community brothers and sisters, they are the last to be hired, and the first to be hired. they are talking about community benefits. how about if we talk to them about putting san franciscans to work? when they see that local, when they see that hat,
when they see that hardhat they know more likely those people live in san francisco and some day you may need us. after the 1906 earthquake as i said to you on many occasions we built 575 7 earthquake shacks so that san francisco could have hope to rise from the ashes. you may need us again and right now and i don't deny everything that i have done for three decades has been about putting everybody to work, regardless of who you are. you want to go to work? you want to provide a decent standard of living for your family? let's go to work doing that. san franciscans are at a disadvantage with these jobs. commissioners you are in a position to impact that in a positive way. can't be just about the buildings. after all, what are the buildings for? it's about people. so hopefully you keep that in mind when you have discussions with those developers. i think you and again, happy mayday. it's hope for a better outcome,
because black folks are less than 4% right now and that is the ugliest thing i could hope to see in my town. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please commissioners my name is dennis and i want to second what jim just said about hiring san franciscans and particularly those people of color in the city, who are not getting the jobs. but i rise only for another issue. for some months now, the press has talked a lot about and encouraged thinking of taking sports teams from oakland. now the warriors were once here, but they have been in oakland for a long time. i know that oakland is kind of considered some sort of second class area or secondary and not very important city for some reason or other. obviously it's a very vibrant place and serves its own community in ways that i guess we don't. but i am very concerned about the latest proposal of let's
recruit the raiders over here. i note that historically the raiders former owner al davis did a lot to jerk oakland around and caused taxpayer dollars to keep the team there and according to the papers what i didn't hear from commissioner antonini, the papers reported should this all happen and the raiders were brought over here, i think the net debt to the people of oakland would be $172 million. i would just caution san francisco's public officials to be careful about encouraging something which is going to maybe benefit the private owners of a sports franchise and whatever contractors get benefit here. it's going to cause the people of oakland to spend a fortune of their own money for nothing, just to pay debt. we should be careful and thinking in terms of a regional thing and supporting each other, rather than frankly, from my point of view, anyway,
stealing their teams back to san francisco to make us shine and other people be in the shadows. thank you. >> thank you. terry. >> commissioners, my name is terry mill and i am a citizen of bernal heights. last week you mentioned in your housing policy discussion that there are a few neighborhoods in san francisco that have area plans. and east slope of bernal heights is one of them. the reason that i am here is because for some time, decade, maybe two decade, there has been misapprehension about the boundaries of the area of the east slope that are first misapprehension and back offices and now it's institutionalized on your computer. if people look up properties, there is a couple of blocks
that show no within the east slope and we have sort of mindless conversations with somebody who wants to build a house or remodel a house, that well, we're not really in the east slope. , et cetera, et cetera. so i have brought the resolution from 1986 and maybe you could ask the director to see that it gets changed so the boundaries are actually the way that they were certified in 1986. thank you very much. >> thank you. further general public comment? seeing none -- -- . thank you commissioner my name is jackie
chavez and i'm an excelsior native, and one of the issues that we have in the excelsior is three medical cannabis dispensary, three on mission street and know ocean avenue you have on your agenda opening up a third one on ocean avenue a block away from one that already exists and i'm asking the commission. >> is this about the item that is on the calendar? >> yes. >> we'll take that public comment when we'll get to the item. >> great. thank you. >> any further general public comment? seeing none -- i'm sorry-- >> thank you. thank you, commissioners. i failed to be here on-time for last week's housing element issue. i would like to spend a minute
reflecting on something that i should have said last week. the housing elements, as i said before, very good, accurate and indicates the needs that we have in the city. however, the implementation program of the housing element lacks a level -- it is not realistic. the housing built, the units are all mainly market-rate. as you know, 85 plus high-end type of units, and the very low-end, for the most part perhaps 80% meet that standard. but in the middle, the workforce kind of housing that is needed for the average working san franciscan that are not in the high-tech or are not professionals or even if you are a professional, you might
need two professional people to make a household financially able to meet all the expenses. so what i am saying is that the housing element, i hope that in the future is more realistic and really provides hard answers as to how we're going to solve this housing crisis. mayor lee, i think, has taken a good step, but talk is cheap and we would like to see results. thank you. >> thank you. further general public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cohen with the council housing commission and i believe next week on your agenda is the housing inventory. just yesterday there was an announcement from the mayor's office about a new housing meter. and just think it would be very helpful to have some more
detailed information about that so-called housing meter as part of your conversation about the housing inventory. we know that you have the residential pipeline and quarterly summary, but the meter seems to be a much more aggregated number and it would be helpful to have that broken down by whoever staff is presenting on that item. thank you. >> thank you. is there additional general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners, that will place you under your regular calendar. and items 5a and b were pulled off of consent for case notches 2013-0627 an b and c at 663rd street for conditional use authorization shall be considered now. >> good afternoon, commissioners, rick sucre, department staff. before you is an conditional use authat