Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 26, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT

6:00 pm
for future generations of people who are going to come here, serviced here, live here in a comfortable way, and then to make sure this serves as yet another example as to why we fight for redevelopment, why we do things right in the city. to make sure fred maxwell, doug and others keep these examples coming. in san francisco, we will continue doing it right. now they don't get paid up there until they start listening to people and getting the work done. thank you very much for this opportunity. [applause] >> mayor, thank you so much four thoughts, and he about couldn't agree with you more. i have to say that the redevelopment agency, the city and county of san francisco, have been stellar partners for bridge, and we appreciate your candid attitude. thank you very much, and i would like to give you this as an appreciation. >> well, thank you very much.
6:01 pm
[applause] >> another great partner of bridge's -- supervisor mar: the meeting will come to order. good evening, everyone. this is the june 20 land use meeting. it to my right, the vice chair
6:02 pm
and supervisor wiener. we're also joined by supervisor if campos. >> please turn off all cellular phones and pagers. items acted upon today will appear on the june 28 board of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. supervisor cohen: oh, i see. supervisor mar: i would also like to think the staff of sfgtv for televising us today. we have a number of items on our agenda -- eight items -- and i have been urged by my colleague supervisor wiener to move the hearing on the t-line performance so he could hear the
6:03 pm
action items. could you please call item 1? >> item 1, or is amending the planning could regarding the authorization of historic signs. supervisor campos: thank you for hearing this item, i also want to thank all the members of the audience to are here. just to give you a little context, many of you perhaps have read that in brno heights, there was recently discovered of coca-cola sign, and that is a sign that has been in that location for decades. it has been an integral part of the history of the neighborhood, and rightly many people in the neighborhood wanted to preserve the sign in response -- wanted to preserve the signed. in response to that desire, we
6:04 pm
have draft legislation before you today. in drafting the legislation know, we wanted to take into account that even though we were responding to a specific situation, we also wanted to -- going forward -- address similar situations of similar signs in other parts of the city that have historical, historic significance in a neighborhood and provide a mechanism whereby a supervisor, consulting with the neighborhood, could put a process to protect similar signs. the legislation that is before you is legislation that was crafted in close consultation with the attorney's office and the planning department. i want to thank my office, who spent a lot of time working on this. it is legislation that has gone up through review at the planning commission, where we
6:05 pm
had a very interesting discussion about what the exact terminology is that should be used and what the language should be. we played with language through the process, at times using the words "historic," but one of the concerns correctly pointed out, once you start using that word, there are implications, legal implications that go beyond the intent of the legislation. this is just one of those pieces of legislation that sparked a great deal of interest in this neighborhood and other parts of the city, and through the process, we have received a lot of suggestions from the public as to what the right word should be. and the word that we've finally all settled on, and i think it perfectly captures what we're trying to get to, is the word
6:06 pm
"vintage." what you have before you are amendments to the legislation that i would ask the committee to adopt, andean and men's incorporate some of the discussion that took place in -- amendments incorporate some of the discussion that took place in the planning commission. 1 addition i would make, which is not included in the amended legislation we have, is that the title that currently reads historic signs, that the word "historic" be replaced by "vintage." if i can just quickly walk you through what the law should -- what the legislation does, it would amend 608.4 of the planning code to redefine a sign
6:07 pm
subject to this section as a vintage sign. for a sign to be captured by that section, it has to be located within an historic sign district. this takes away their requirements, and allows us to designate a vintage sign, whether or not it is located in an historic sign district. it also makes it clear if there is any attempt to relocate the sign, it would have to go through a conditional use authorization, a process that would go before the planning commission and would require planning commission approval before that happens. it also makes it clear that any alteration of the sign would be considered in abandonment of the authorization and the sign would
6:08 pm
be considered a new son, which would be subject to the existing requirements -- a new sign, which would be subject to the existing requirements of the code. that is the legislation before you. we believe it will not only addressed the specific issue in vernal heights, but it provides a process -- in bernal heights, but it provides a process for other neighborhoods. i think you for your support. ," thank staff -- i think staffer working on this, and all the members of the public, for all the valuable suggestions. thank you. supervisor mar: emery rogers from planning? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to introduce my colleague who has worked on this legislation.
6:09 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors. the planning commission heard the legislation on june 2, 2010 and voted unanimously to approve the legislation with modifications. supervisor campos touched on some of the modifications that have been made. when they were not associated with an historic resources -- the also modify proposed legislation to offer three- dimensional signs in new locations with authorization, as specified in the ordinance. the section of the planning code does not by itself protect a sign from been obscured or removed by future development projects, particularly when those projects advance planning department goals and plans. we would like to thank
6:10 pm
supervisor campos for it those modifications. supervisor mar: thank you. si no questions from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment -- seeing know, questions from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment. mr. decosta. >> my name is francisco decosta. supervisor campos i would like to commend you for this legislation. there are many such signs all over our city that need to be preserved. when you say "vintage," i think about wine. [laughter] the best thing is you are moving
6:11 pm
forward. of like to see -- and maybe this is for the planning department -- we need to do something to preserve our murals. thank you very much. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward for a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. the attorney? >> it has to sit in committee for another meeting. is that correct? and my apologies -- this is for diet coke, not a:. [laughter] supervisor mar: we will continue this for the next meeting? >> you need to approve the amendment first.
6:12 pm
supervisor mar: without objection, colleagues. we will continue this for our next meeting, which is scheduled for -- >> july 11. supervisor mar: july 11. thank you. colleagues, we're hearing item #2, the hearing on the muni t- line performance at the end of the action item. without objection, colleagues, can we take item #three out of order? >> item #3, ordinance amending the zoning map to change 2451 sacramento st.. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the legislation that is before you would be is done a parking lot -- would re-zone a
6:13 pm
parking lot. it is at the corner of sacramento and fillmore. the yellow area would change to this blue area for the commercial district. it would result in a 400-foot swath on both sides of sacramento st., both sides would be the same, and it would not change the height at all. the lot is in between an existing one-story commercial building on fillmore street, and the san francisco housing authority would like to live with us this under-use property. this gives us the opportunity for a mixed-use development in the future that the diversified commercial and residential uses in this area. it would not negatively impact
6:14 pm
the district, and the re-zoning would equalize the ncd district. the commission recommended approval of the section on february 24 of this year. i am available for questions. supervisor mar: colleagues? seeing no questions, are there any members of the public like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward with a positive recommendation without objection? >> we have the committee report for tomorrow. supervisor mar: ok, can we move this as a committee -- as a committee report with a positive recommendation? thank you. please call item -- actually, should we call items four through six together? >> item four, ordinance amending
6:15 pm
the san francisco general plan by amending the it's a two-part sub area plan, item five, executive park special use district, item number six, executive park subarea plan area. supervisor mar: thank you. i believe we have a report from planning on items four through six. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i believe we did a presentation for you on this item last week, and we had quite a bit of discussion and public comment. this was held over for a week to put on those -- to put on notice the one change by the committee, which is the moving of the potential to our site one block to the east from the original proposal. we have no further information
6:16 pm
for you. we are here if you love questions -- if you have any questions. supervisor mar: thank you. seeing none questions, we will open it up for public comment. who from the public would like to ask a question? >> good afternoon. espinola jackson. i would hope that you would pass on -- except when i was here at the last meeting, my request at that time was district 1 01 of the planning code, when lines were drawn from visitation valley across six lanes of the highway to the bayshore, under highway 101, that claims executive park is part of
6:17 pm
visitation valley. i said at that time, at executive park is in the bayview. it is in the hills. but also said about the comments that was made for the planning commission -- what i want to do is have that deleted, because there was no -- there was never a hearing in my community concerning the fees in the project, and that my community was made part of. and i have been there in bayview hunters point since 1948, so, i know the community. i know when the lines was drawn, and when they were was drawn. and i said in the city planning book, and it has been there for years -- bayshore to the bay. it used to be armand street.
6:18 pm
thank you. i hope you do something about that. i will see if you take care of business for bayview hunters point and clear up my community. none of those fees have come before us been been -- a, forced. thank you very much. >> supervisors, i have the hot topics. -- 2 topics. the advocates who come here to testify, they come here for a purpose. they have been coming here a long time. some of us to deliberate fail to comprehend -- there was a time
6:19 pm
[unintelligible] people like espinola jackson, and through our legislation -- i am going to categorically state when you cross over the bay shore, this is exactly what you should do. this was done by a former supervisor to accommodate some of her cronies. this has to be fixed. secondly, i have an office at executive park, and as i stated before, i would love this project to go forward, but i would also like to bring your attention that this project should have gone forward five
6:20 pm
years ago. but are planning department sided with lennar and put this project on the back burner. d-e-a-d. which is good. we have decided to end the planning department and the planning commission, they have decided this project should go forward. so, let this project forward. i know again and gain -- again, this planning will have to come of for a land use, the planning department, the board of supervisors, and we will be there. but, to the people at home, this is one body, the land use body,
6:21 pm
if something is not done legally and is done illegally, it is like a lie, and the lies are repeated and repeated and repeated. and the lies become the truth. supervisors, you should know that if you are educated on the issues, if you really know how planning works, this is the process. last time i was listening to the deliberation and -- [chime] i want this to go forward, but the line should be adjudicated. supervisor mar: thank you very much. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed even -- public comment is
6:22 pm
closed. can i just ask the city attorney to address the legal question, that perhaps the lines have been drawn a legally? i know, i think it is terrible when neighborhoods are bitter, such as hunters point. i would just ask for some rationale for how these will be impacting them. >> i just want to fine-tune what supervisor mar is asking. the developers developing executive park will have fees, and these fees will actually go toward projects in visitation valley. we're just trying to get clarification on how that happens.
6:23 pm
>> john lamott from the city attorney's office. the lines for visitation valley was a legislative matter. the determination that it was inappropriate area to have these collected and have this area be used -- so, it is entirely up to the board of supervisors as a policy as to where to set the boundaries. supervisor cohen: could you give me a recommendation on how we can correct this? since it was a previous legislative matter? for the record? >> you could make a request for a legislative amendment to the fee boundaries. and we would process it. we would processes with the city
6:24 pm
attorney's office and the planning department and it would go through the standard process, the planning commission, and ultimately the board. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor mar: so, my suggestion is we vote on the three items. hopefully supervisor cohen can engage members of the different neighborhoods, and potentially we could have an amendment to share the impacts and not to leave hunters point out in the cold, which the speakers employed, and also getting more of the historic context of may be why there is a rationale for this alley -- another neighborhood that has been neglected historic plea as well, they have tremendous needs as well. this needs to be considered on balance.
6:25 pm
i see no reason to hold up the legislation based on those items. was there any context that can be given from the planning department? >> hi, again. i was not involved in that myself. there's a lot of history i am not exactly aware of. i would like to make a couple points to -- i would like to make a couple points. circumstances change. issues change. we are talking about an impact fee boundary. named vis valley, primarily vis valley. the effort is to connect executive park to the surrounding neighborhoods. it is kind of in a corner, and it is under the tunnel, under the freeway. it is one of the primary moves were this is happening in project. supervisor mar: but now with the
6:26 pm
hunters point lennar development, it connects up more with hunters point? >> correct. that is correct. there is large growth potential happening behind the hill, all that will connect through this valley, which has its non-public improvement program, infrastructure, neighborhood amenities, etc., and that will be within the hunters point project. i think part of the issue, and this is going back to the timing of when that line was drawn, executive park was moving forward, and it was not a mechanism or place for impact and to put structure in place. independently to garner public benefits, community improvements. so, it was the seemingly logical
6:27 pm
thing. the feedback we have been getting is largely from folks back in vis valley. other types of books and been very active in this project. -- other types of folks have been very active in this project. to me, that would tell me why it is connected to the vis valley, because we do have impacts over in vis valley and we do not have the same kind of mechanism in terms of internalized impacts. i was not involved myself. but i imagine that would explain it. supervisor mar: thank you. i know the members from supervisor cohen's office could shed light on that. maybe we can convene a meeting
6:28 pm
to think of some and then that could move this forward. supervisor cohen: i would like to ask a quick question. correct me if i am wrong, but there is nothing in the legislation that requires the money go to visitation valley, right? this is merely an option? >> i would probably have to familiarize myself with the fee program, but usually there is a verification, and it is something that would be expanded again through legislation that could be modified to include additional things. i would remind the committee that whenever we have a nexus
6:29 pm
feethere needs to be a connecti. in connection demonstrated between the impact of a particular project and the program to which the fee revenues would be put. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, we have items four, five, and six before us. my understanding is it is not noticed for that. without objection, colleagues? thank you. thank you, everyone. can you please call item 7 and 8 together on the local hiring mou is san the teddy upcounty and the tolling agreement? >> the memorandum of understanding with san may take no county regarding local hiring


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on