tv [untitled] January 16, 2012 2:31am-3:01am PST
now it would seem fairly league -- easy to have that done electronically. >> we do get a confirmation that they have received our request. what you are asking for is proof of what will be published. in this case it is something that they did not publish what they were given. this is something that could be brought up at a future date regarding the universal planning notification process. one of the recommendations have been to reduce or remove the requirement for the newspaper ad. that is something we could discuss in the future. commissioner antonini: the ability to prove it would avoid these in the future. electronically it should be able to be done pretty quickly today. a second question in regards to
this idea of a third party to a body weight coverage capacity in cellphone and in tenant installations. who would be liable to pay for this? >> the wireless carrier would pay for it, but the department would oversee the work. similar to the way we do the environmental review work today. >> good afternoon, and wreak rogers. i will go over that iran might report as well. -- amm marie rodgers. nn marie rodgers. there will be a confidentiality agreement that they will not disclose data that they are charged with confirming is accurate. commissioner antonini: thank
you. we will hear more drink your report. third, there was mention of this by the mayor of further legislation that would impact legislation from the city, and i thought that sounded very promising that goes beyond what we currently have from prop k. >> it would require analysis to determine if there are jobs being created or lost with the proposal. commissioner antonini: great. my final question for those that were preparing this in regards to redevelopment, i think the obvious question will be how far along as a project have to be before it is allowed to move forward? that is something that everybody asks. second, when did the legally binding contract have to be enforced for this to be considered in process?
those are the questions everyone will want to know. thank you. >commissioner sir guyugaya: sin treasure island has its own separate agency, can you give us a status report on that? >> when this all started a year ago, treasure island decided not to go direct of being a redevelopment area. it had been designated by the city as the redevelopment agency, so they would automatically dissolved without particular role on february 1 as the redevelopment agency. that happens automatically, and essentially it is a moot point is it we're going that way anyway. the legislation that the mayor introduced does take away their right to be a redevelopment agency as well. commissioner sugaya: secondly,
on antennas' again, the board of supervisors direction was for capacity and coverage and does not address what we cannot control, the radio -- >> [inaudible] commissioner borden: just be clear, we of a couple of the antennas on our agenda today. does that mean we would add this to approval? >> we will discuss that and it will be up to you if you would like to add that as a condition of approval. it is really up to you. off >> than>> thank you. >> ann marie rodgers back to
give you the weekly report on the board of supervisors activity. this time it is a little bit of a look back at december. we did not have a chance to tell you about the december activities. there were a couple of informational hearings 48 washington and the california pacific medical center. -- 8 washington. i wanted to share details of the conditional use hearing detailed before the board as the board requested specifically we tell the commission about it. this was an appeal for wireless and 10 at 4109 mission street. -- wireless atenas at 4109 mission street. the board hearings here was another matter with over 45 minutes worth of presentation.
a great deal of new information was presented, including a survey from the appellate claiming nearly 72% of the neighbors disapprove of the installation. and they also provided an independent assessment by an engineer who questioned the gap in coverage as claimed by at&t. like the similar field of the been heard by the board the week before, members were concerned about the differences in the map that were given to this commission and the maps that at&t provided to the public on the website regarding capacity in coverage. supervisor campos question the ability of the city to assess the necessity. he stated it must be based on the independent analysis of at&t coverage maps. the supervisor urge the approval of thed the approval of cu.
supervisors wiener, compoampos, and cohen wanted to relay a message that they are increasingly struggling with the idea that these are necessary. they wanted to take note of the recent actions and make adjustments in our procedures. specifically the requested planning require an independent a valuation of capacity and coverage for future installation, and we do have the full language if you like to go over that later for your items. that was the zoning administrator. and we should do this as a matter of regular practice. when it came time to take action, supervisor campos was one short needed of eight to disapprove. i think we have gone over this already.
planning staff, in addition to the criteria, the art to consult with the appellate and the planning staff prior to the consultant. it this of all you later finds the data is not accurate, or the antennas would not improve the gap, then this see yoe cu woulde disapproved. this is all at the department's discretion to evaluate. with that, the board unanimously a vote voted 11-0 . we will make our final selection by closing business today. as to have heard, the department will present a draft policy that would add a similar
commission at a hearing that is supposed to be next week. so, while you will not consider the broader policy today, you can decide if you like to apply a similar condition to those before you today. that was last year. and this year the board heard of one percent signed requirement. the planning commission considered this ordinance on october 27. this week a committee board president did introduce the changes requested by the commission. the major modifications include the activation of the large ground source spaces with public art works and expanding the requirement to be city-wide. these were made after the city's office and mayor's office conducted additional our reach that requirement requested. this would only required on-site are four residential buildings that are over 3000 square feet.
our department surveys potential pipeline project show this would be a very low number of projects. now the on-site requirement would be expanded so the open spaces are required between 1503 thousand would be required to spend the first half million. the mayor's office have did speak in support of this change. speaker chiu submitted the change so it would require to all projects, not just city- wide. this news city-wide requirement would only take in four projects over 75,000 square feet.
the mayor's office that said they had not yet had time to consider the amendment. since it will include up at the special expanded feet, the item needs to be continued for two weeks before it can be heard by the committee. at the full board on tuesday they heard nominations for members for the market in octavia city market group. supervisor elsbernd nominated new members to the burkett. he asked the board vote of all the obligations on tuesday. he asked mr. cohen's nomination be set back to the committee for further discussion. he said he stated he had been nominated for low-income see, but was no wonder low income. sauc-- but was no longer low income.
on the motion to send his nomination back to the committee, the motion passed 6- 5. the committee will reach here this nomination in the future. the board also considered overturning a veto o. this would be of the sharply an ordinance. this week the board voted on whether they should override the veto. they need a super majority of eight, and over rights failed with only six votes. lastly, this week there was a sequa appeal for the certification of the modern art expansion and fire station relocation. this is the e.i.r. appeal of the project. they have remained arguments. they argued it did not match the plan submitted to the
department. they argued the visual impacts were not analyze and there would be impacts to present views. staff responded to these claims, and on a unanimous vote they upheld the certification and denied the appeal. the board subsequently voted to adopt the zoning ordinances that accompany the projects, and the project itself will be back before the commission for your approval consideration on february 2nd. there were a few introductions. you have heard our directors share his concern in the redevelopment agency. last year there was an introduction that would allow additional time in by which eastern neighborhoods could not file for eligibility for [inaudible] . we will review and analyze that and bring it to you in the next few months. ancommissioner antonini: thank
you for your report as always. i think i have asked before about it this has any president in any jurisdictions that you are aware of throughout the state. >> it is a pretty specific condition that was added, so i have not heard of anything similar to that. i will review the information that commissioner more provided us and applicathe director is working closely with us and other departments in analyzing the process. and commissioner antonini: secondly, this seems a little hard, you mentioned is the of the evaluation by the outside experts had agreed with that
particular provider that there would be automatic approval. i would think there are other things we look at other than just the coverage maps being accurate or not. >> the board approved the cu as approved by this commission. all of the conditions that were inherent in your approval would be inherent. the only added the one new condition. commissioner antonini: that would be the only thing that would possibly change our decision. my final question is, coverage and capacity -- how are they going to a evaluate for future demand? you can look at something as a static, in time for now, but we know demand is changing quickly, so are we going to evaluate future projections in these evaluations or just look at capacity coverage situation at this time? >> perhaps it would be good to
share a clip of the actual language of the board. we will provide this for the administrator. this will confirm the information submitted by the applicant -- i lost my place reading this. in support of their see you is accurate. -- cu is accurate. the independent evaluation will be kept confidential. we know that. that is the language. >> it sounds like more of an accuracy, what is being presented as reflecting conditions that exist at the present time. >> yes, this is the accuracy of the data. thank you. >> and the board of appeals did meet last night. when i jurisdiction request. -- one item of interest was a
jurisdiction request. the commission heard this in 2010. the building permit was issued in 2011. construction work commenced after that. an adjacent neighbor filed the jurisdiction request in december, because they had concerns about the scope of the work being concerned. it is our understanding that the work being performed is per plan, as was in the plans. also, the request for had filed a letter of support when the item was before you. it seems that as the project was being constructed it was not as they had visualized from seeing the plan. they had concerns and wanted the scope of the project reduced. that shows the importance of explaining clearly what the scope of the project is. not everyone can understand the plans. other items related to the board of appeals -- there will be some changes in the composition of the board in december. former president tanya peterson
resigned. she is the executive director of the san francisco zoo. she has been doing an excellent job there and will be focusing full time on that position, an important position. last night, current president goh resigned from the board of appeals. she will be sitting for next week's hearing, but has announced she is moving to beijing to take a new position which sounds exciting. we wish her the best, as well as commissioner peterson. during the years i have been observed -- observing them on the board, i am impressed by their integrity and attention to detail. i wish them both the best in their endeavors. in terms of replacement commissioners, ms. peterson was appointed by the mayor, who has nominated rich hillis from the office of work force
development. he left that office last year and is now the executive director of mason center. he has been nominated and will be undergoing a review and approval process for that. president goh was a board appointee and we have no word of a replacement for her. i wanted to update you on the changes. >> the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. if there are no further comments on the director's report item, we can move on to public comment. at this time, members of the public might address the commission on items of interest within the jurisdiction of the planning commission, with the exception of agenda items. agenda items may not be addressed in this category. with respect to this category, each member of the public might address the commission for up to
3 minutes, skimming in mind the entire category has a 15 minute time limit. i do have speaker cards. >> i am to him. -- tim. good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the housing action coalition, speaking about the washington project which is going to be before you soon enough. we have supported it for years and believe it brings enormous benefits to the entire city. but i wanted to point out that in spite of the rhetoric and controversy, what is being discussed is a simple land use question period should see wall lot 351 main a surface parking lot or not? if not, what should it become? the opposition comes from good people. as even they might concede, they
are upper-middle-class and live in one of the most pleasant neighborhoods of san francisco. these poor souls are aggrieved and oppressed because new housing is being proposed for their neighborhood. the housing they are living in displaced an earlier generation of businesses and residents. it was not bad news when it was redeveloped. many of the folks opposing this project have lived there for years and decades in rent- control housing. that is a curious platform from which to oppose new housing. by contrast, the washington project, this place is no one unless you count tennis courts at a private club. the accusation against this project is that it will become high and housing, something we freely concede. after all this is some of the most valuable land in northern california. for decades, through citywide planning decisions and policies, the city of san francisco has
said if land is developed for housing, it must pay for a basket of civic goodies. among other things, this includes enormous payments to the city -- $10 million for affordable housing. onetime payments to report. these are city figures. the new public open space and playground -- new, walkway access to the water park, and on and on. we would ask you -- as this parking lot that exists now -- would it take a comparable rate of return to san francisco? we have never yet heard an argument how the city itself, the people of san francisco, would benefit from turning down the washington project. will it turn it down in order to develop a surface parking lot
because local communities will not accept any change to a private swimming and tennis court? thank you. >> paul enserman? i will keep calling. brad paul? >> mr. chairman -- i have not said that in a while. i wanted to give you some new information about washington. it comes from the land use committee the other day. that is about the other partner in the deal, which we rarely hear about. there are four reasons why they are a partner. the first reason is that they own 80% of the land that will become washington. i will put this on the screen. the also have the only land being up sold. they are the only land being
up-zoned. and they have a condominium interest. thanks to that, we now see who owns what when they are done. what is in point is what the golden gate wickets to retain in the final project, a significant part of this. what is this important? the last speaker talked about these 29 units of affordable housing. that is to make up for the effect of the other 45 would not meet real housing needs in san francisco. but those 29 units have to be put in the context of the conversion of hundreds of rent- control units to short-term vacation rental. this is continuing. you will probably lose more than 29 in the first year of construction if this project was built. the other issue is the tax loophole to avoid its fair share of taxes.
there is a loophole in prop. 13, when they bought the building. they bought a percentage of the holding company. no sale ever recorded. no sale, no reassessment. they are paying property taxes based on a pre-prop 13 assessment. i want to give you a copy. this was a cover story in last week's arrest of weekly. the title is "the war -- the loopholes corporations use to avoid taxes. the talks about a market for the city fought and got back $23 million on golden gate way. this is not illegal. let us be clear about this. it is unethical. it is wrong. but it is not illegal. the first hike increase, declined on the waterfront in almost 50 years. to summarize, we will build a higher than the embarcadero. we will block the use we got back by -- the views we got back
by building the freeways so we can build pieta tears -- so we can build pied-a-tiers for millionaires. how does this meet the test of desirable? it baffles me. the alternative has been in the and plan all along, and calls for an exciting new bike transit center downtown that will bring lots of people there and serve all sentences since on the parking lot. >> paul warmer? >> good afternoon. surprisingly enough, this is the third of the comments on a eight washington. i am always impressed by project sponsors being in focus on finding things a certain way.
when i last spoke on eight washington, they had their green roof expert testifying about the immense amount of co2 the project would remove from the air, which frankly does not stand up for you do the collations. we have frequently heard how it is a small group who live in the neighborhood who do not want to lose a parking lot. i would like to submit for the record the minutes from may of 2010, and the resolution with csfn opposed 8 washington. and the 48 member organizations that certainly cannot all be neighbors of the site. i know the neighborhood organization i belong to, pacific heights residents' association, has serious concerns about this project, not
specifically focused on the project as it is proposed itself, but rather the whole issue of policies and procedures of approving large projects with significant changes in zoning in an area where there is an area plan that has not been revised, where there are at least two competing visions, one coming out of a neighborhood group. that in particular would be completely initiated by approving this project in and of itself as a single activity. it does not look at the broader integrated impact of the land use decisions in this area. i think that is a real weakness. and i really believe this is something that does need to get more thought, not just for eight washington, but for many of these projects. thank you. >> arthur chang.
>> good afternoon. i live in the area, about a block and a half from the embarcadero boulevard. i am a member of the northeast citizens advisory group. i have been on this committee for the last two years. i am also here to talk about eight washington street. contrary to the earlier gentleman, i have no vested interest in an apartment that faces the swimming pool or tennis court. i am here to ask you to question the authenticity of this development, a term applied by the well-known sociologist and city planner sharon zugin