tv [untitled] July 16, 2010 7:00pm-7:30pm PST
enough about this to vote down the project or suggest a 5 foot setback. i think that is kind of an extreme situation. i think that is all i have to say for now. commissioner hwang: i have nothing further to add but think i am inclined to deny the appeal. president peterson: i am always one for compromise. i appreciate the effort to make a compromise, but the compromise has to have a positive impact. a five-foot set back could matter. i am thinking could a 1 foot setbacks solve anything. i do not think it could solve the situation highlighted by commissioner fung. unfortunately, this is within their right.
the changes are difficult. i appreciate how difficult this will be for you, but i see no legal reason not to uphold the project. i'm too -- i too would be denying the appeal. with that, i will make a motion to deny this appeal. thank everybody for staying so late. >> i am finding the project complies with the residential guidelines in the code. president peterson: thank you. call the roll, please. >> the motion is from the president to uphold the permit on the basis that the permit complies with the residential design guidelines in the code. on that motion, commission fung
. >> forgot no. 2. silver is nothing. there is no having made it and so we beat foreman. i love the competition. . >> american made has really taken it on themselves to green american cities. >> we have a new organizer for the city and county of san francisco. oh, mayor as well. yeah, that's part of the job description. yeah, mayor of san francisco. >> the city is extremely concerned about the emission of green house gasses and making san francisco a sustainable city. >> we need to find other ways to create energy without harm to the environment and this is one source. >> we have over 2 megawatts of
solar on various city buildings. we are looking at tidal power and we're beginning to look at geothermal power. >> we're on the roof of the moscone center of san francisco and we have 2500 panels that power the center. >> here we are using real energy, energy from the sun, free energy from the sun coming in right here. this converts directly into electricity. >> all these technologies cost money. they don't make economic sense. solar never made economic sense. bio fuels never made economic sense. it's when it was adopted that it started making sense. >> some of them have challenges, that take a long time to prove out, but there's no reason that the challenge of where we will get tomorrow's energy in the united states should not produce a very, very large. >> san francisco is unique in
the united states because we serve our own power needs. >> the city of san francisco is well positioned in that we are perfectly located to take advantage of any renewable category. >> we tend to be the last one to figure it all out. it's real people that are saying, enough's enough. . >> the answer is going to be in renewable. the sooner we do something about it, the easier it will be it resolve. >> we're not just talking about what a city can do, we're doing it. >> san francisco has set very aggressive goals for greening the city. >> i'm not just naively optimistic, i am pragmatically optimistic that we meeting for,
2010. the commission does not tolerate disruption or outbursts of any kind. please turn off any mobile devices that may sound of during the proceedings. when speaking, please speak directly into the microphone and state your name for the record. i will table at this time. president miguel here. vice-president olague here. commissioner antonini present. commissioner borden. commissioner lee present. commissioner moore here. commissioner sugaya here.
item one, an ordinance amending the planning code by action -- by adding section 787 to establish the 1800 market street community center project special use district for the property. item two is number 2010.0236 for cuvier street. a continuance is proposed to august. item three is for 80 julien avenue. it is proposed for a continuance to august 5, 2010. that is all i have to be continued. president miguel: is there any public comment on items proposed for continuance? none. public comment is closed. >> move to continue items one,
too, and three to the date proposed. on that motion, [tolunanimously agreed. so moved. you are now on questions and matters. item four, commission comments and questions. >> i had occasion to be in east bay to pick up some goods that were being donated to a charitable event of was working on. this happened to be from a beverage distributor. i went to this industrial park. i was thinking it is located in union city. it was a wonderful place as far as little lawns. it was well lit. there were trees. we do not really have anything like that. we have some space for those
types of things could occur. the closest we have is third and evans, where we have something that has been built in the last 20 or 30 years. this distributor distributor for the bay area. many distributors distribute perishable items. i hope we are looking at these situations. we have talked about out reached to see where we could talk to distributors and various light manufacturers, because it costs a lot of money and time when you have trucks on highways burning
up gas, whereas if you had a distribution point in the west bay, preferably in sentences go, it makes economic sense. i just pass that on for consideration for those who are working on these sorts of issues. it is a frequent thing. we have discussed jobs. there were plenty of them there. this could be something that would be very appropriate in the areas where we have core pdr in san francisco. commissioner sugaya: i knew i was going to forget the name of the market. i had reason to go near columbus on -- was a green? there was congressional -- conditional use a while back for a grocery store. the staff has investigated it with respect to its present configuration, which looks to be mainly like a wine bar and a wine store. i believe there were taking some
action. but perhaps we could get a report back at some point. president miguel: during the past week, i have been in discussion with some of their representatives for cvs, the drug chain, and with, regarding locations in san francisco. commissioner antonini: that tweaked my memory. i have also been in discussion with representatives that happen working with calpacific, which will be coming forward for a project within the next month or two. >> this will bring us to directors' report. commissioner sugaya: as i walked down, i see an increasing number of vacancies downtown.
for example, there was a small gallery district on sutter, around mason and that area. there were six or more vacancies. what i am concerned is that the owners of those buildings do not properly take care of the building when the storefront is empty. there is a tendency of graffiti. there is a tendency of litter. there is a tendency of homeless people, not only at night but also during the day, occupying the storefronts. and i am not particularly targeting the homeless people, but i talk about particular attention to an unleased property, which i do think the owners of buildings should be obligated to. i think it is in the interest of the city at large that we put forward the word that that is necessary. and i am not sure what tools we have, as to whether or not this
might be a discussion were having with other departments. but i do think we need to help ourselves. the tourists are in those areas. we ourselves have residents walk around. -- commissioner moore:. >> i think it is a combination of our department and public works. i will talk to the staff. vice-president olague: i just wanted to point out an article i read. i am not related to anyone at 7 by 7, selling magazines or anything. but there is an interesting magazine on the neighborhood and the transformation from the neighborhood. i think there are some interesting pieces in the mission district, and some of the other locally owned businesses, more independently
owned retailers. i think what is interesting about this article is it does give some sort of -- sheds some light on some of the struggles that we have as commissioners when it comes to the issue of formula retail and the impact it might have on some of the existing neighborhoods. i would encourage people, if you are out and about, to look through it, read through some of it. it does help, i think, gives some insight into some of the struggles we have here, when it comes to that issue, and the desire we want to preserve neighborhood character and history of the neighborhood. check it out. it is interesting. >> that will move us to the director's report and five director's announcements. >> one thing i wanted to mention is that i speak from -- i just
came from a ribbon cutting on valencia's street for the streetscape improvements. there was a very large crowd there of residents and business owners, and at the same time the mayor announced the completion of the better streets plan, which we have completed and will be bringing to you for final action on the next few weeks. and i just wanted to take the opportunity to thank adam barrett, who has spent seven years convening a different departments to have all signed on for that plan. it will become an excellent guidebook for how we do our streets differently and have them be more multi-modal and more pedestrian oriented. we really appreciate that work. >> item 6, review of the past week at the board of
supervisors, board of appeals, and preservation commission. >> andrea rogers, department's staff. this week, the big news is the hunters point shipyard and candlestick project. it would create over 10,000 new units, $7 million of commercial space for the city, a performing arts center, an artists' colony, and possibly a new waterfront stadium. the committee heard presentations from the mayor's office, the development agency, and planning department staff. it was one of the series of informational hearings about this project. this week focused on the 12 draft oriented -- ordinances. you heard these your june 3 joint hearing. well you're hearing lasted 13 hours, the brief hearing was only three hours long. all the ordinances were released from the 30 day hold this week. they are available for committee
action. president ch addressed various -- president chiu addressed various actions, including expansion of the center and a workforce development for at- risk job applicants, and upgrading a tower. the minutes that could be adopted were adopted in the hearing. the actions were passed out of committee with the decision. final actions on these items are scheduled for the full board on july 27. the following day, on tuesday this week, the board of supervisors held a hearing with the board sitting as a whole on the redevelopment agency plans for the hunters point shipyard. this week, after hearing public comment, they disclosed the hearing.
the will continue final action on july 27. later in the day, there was the appeal of the final certification of ier for the project -- the eir for the project. that was certified by a 4-3 vote. this hearing lasted about 11 hours. until the early morning hours, appellants focused on the cleanup of the superfund site and the creation of the bridge through the wetlands area. proponents noted the job creation and revitalization the project will bring. the vote in the end was 8-3 to uphold the eir. that is my summary of the board of supervisors' activities. commissioner antonini: thank you. you were listing some of the amendments president chiu was
talking about. one was in regards to a puc for public power. i am not sure what the relationship was to the candlestick point/hunters point shipyard. obviously, it must be in the context of the project to some degree. there was not a connection i could see. >> just moments before the hearing -- i have not had a chance to read it. i did get a summary from david chiu summarizing the statements in more detail. there is a whole paragraph on the public power amendment. the other area i have not had a chance to read -- commissioner antonini: it would be great if we could get summary of those amendments when you have time to make copies today. >> we will make copies of that. i also have a summary from mr. sanchez of the board of appeals. this week he felt there were three items the commission might be interested in, the first having to do with 2642.
this is an appeal of a building permit to legalize an existing property. that is regarding light, air, and privacy. this commission heard the dr on july 24. you voted unanimously to approve this. the board also voted to unanimously uphold it. also, they considered 763 university ave. there was a violation listed to enforce conditions of approval applied by the commission to a dr you heard. you heard that in january 2009. at that time, the permit was filed to legalize work that had been done beyond the scope of the permit. well the appellant initially submitted plans that comply, they later submitted revisions that did not comply. when these non-conforming revisions were rerouted to the
planning department, we did notify them that they were not in compliance. despite this instruction, they refused to comply with the board's additions. as a result, the department began enforcement procedures on issues in violation. the board of appeals agreed they had not complied with your decision and unanimously upheld the notice of violation and the penalty. the decision can be credited at least in part to the efforts of kate, of our code enforcement team and the members of neighborhood planning. the last have to do with 708 vermont street. they wanted a permit to add a floor to the existing building. the appellant was concerned over light and air to a small white well on the property. that argued the matching might well provided by the project sponsor was not adequate. the requested a larger polite well. you heard the dr this january 14.
at that time, you voted to uphold the permit. the board was of a similar opinion. they also voted to uphold the permit. that concludes book reports. if you have questions on either, and will make sure to give the commission copies of the full amendments. president miguel: thank you. >> we are now on general public comment, not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public might address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. with regard to agenda items, the opportunity will be accorded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is steven halpern. i and the chair of the architecture committee for the forest hill association. we have an issue for something which has been ongoing for two years. it is an rh1d zone. they built 8 cents that violated planning code, which limits like to 3 feet. also, an enclosure for recycling and garbage is not dealt with in a setback. the work was done without a permit. i will run through some significant correspondence. on april 8, 2008, our association sent a letter informing them were violating planning codes and lack of street parking. april 15, notice of alleged violation. may 9, 2008, violation of this
issue. november 19, 2008, notice of violation. january 20, 2009, order. march, 2009, planning meets with the attorney to discuss the case. december 8, 2009, the violation must be abated by january 11, 2010. april 7, 2010, the enforcement planner emailed supervisor elsbernd's office stating she met with the zoning administrator. understated they are submitting the plans april 7 to comply. the plans are not received in two weeks. matter will be scheduled between -- before an administrative court hearing. we have heard nothing about plans being submitted or administrated, or a hearing being scheduled.
i just hope the commission can help us resolve this issue and have the owners comply with the planning department codes. i have them outlined here. president miguel: thank you. is there further public comment on non-agenda items? >> thank you. my name is lee radner, friends of golden gateway. i am back here this afternoon. last thursday, the planning commissioners heard a report by the planning staff on the northeast riverfront study, and a motion for a resolution to pass it on to the port commission, which was heard on
tuesday, july 15. at the port commission hearing, the planning staff presented the study. however, they also showed several slides of building heights that were not in the presentation made to your commissioners. i requested copies of those slides and was able to about two hours ago receive one with one view, which i have here. i want to submit it to the commissioners for their review. we are concerned that the original presentation to the commissioners was not complete. i understand there are one or two more of the schematic drawings, which have to deal with the height limits at the proposed washington site. the ones i have were presented
-- were given to show the drummond street side. as far as we are concerned, there were not included in the report to you, the original proposal to the commissioners. therefore it was not complete. president miguel: thank you. is there additional general public comment. if not, general public comment is closed. >> that will conclude public comment -- >> on the first person who testified, staff can look into that. commissioner moore: is there any comment on the second item, that there was indeed a different presentation of different materials? >> i honestly do not know. i will have to check with staff,
asking them the status of this, when these drawings were presented. i do not know. commissioner moore: i will generally say since we very carefully crafted how we were going to send this along that submitting additional material is not quite in the spirit of what we sent on its way. i hope that the next time or even for this one there is further explanation of why is being done. if so, i do believe we should be updated, because the boats we took were specific -- the votes were specific and they get enough for a preliminary discussion. i think the supplement material is not quite in the spirit of what we were doing that day. vice-president olague: i just wanted to comment that whatever explanation staff has for the absence of these maps i know
that the head of the project has been on vacation. so he was not present at this hearing, although i believe he was present at the port hearing. on a couple of occasions prior to that hearing, commissioner moore had requested some maps of that. of course i did last week at the hearing. when i did make mention of that, there was no comment by staff that those were available, based on the comments step received here. i believe they then went and complete the work we had requested. as i mentioned, commissioner moore has requested them on other occasions. that may be an explanation of why those maps and those iterations were not included in our presentation. >> as