tv [untitled] January 22, 2012 10:48am-11:18am PST
these were negotiated agreements, these are development agreements, but there are controls and the planning code that will be amended. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors. we're very proud of the efforts of the san francisco redevelopment agency in creating this project and creating the process. we want to express our support of this resolution going forward and said our compliments to the city administration's office.
>> thank you. next speaker. >> i have been waiting for this day. i did not even imagine that this day would come when i started 20 something years ago. i'm appalled that the process is continuing even though we're getting rid of that giant. this is the same thing that happened in 1948. back when redevelopment was first put together, in a smoke- filled room. i have the history on how they put together this so-called urban renewal but we called it a negro removal. they talked about how significant this did. having you checked the history of what they'd done to the african-americans here in san francisco?
now, here we got them, we will have to make sure that they are accountable. what are you doing it, russia and it if you are not even looking at -- what are you doing? you are rushing it. the african-american out migration. i don't need no permission to do what i'm doing. right now, the records show that the redevelopment agency has been detrimental to the african-american kennedy and there is no gift back now. the only thing we have to do is that we will have to file a lawsuit. i will file the suit along with others to stop all of these procedures. i am ashamed of ed lee. he complained on how redevelopment has done. how dare him without consulting
to the committee, with the western addition. this is insulting. we will have to file a lawsuit. >> thank you. are there other members of the public that wish to speak on this item: number9? >> i would like to give the interim director of the redevelopment agency an opportunity to address and the sticky questions that i heard that will may be shed some light. one, if you can speak to the extension of the deadline. this is the question raised by the woman from st. patrick's parish. then, if you can discuss what actual powers we have. thank you. >> thank you. one, on the extension, when i
heard the woman from st. patrick's church articulate and ask for an extension of the time for the transition. what we do know is that redevelopment agencies will be dissolved as of february 1. there is no appeal process, there is nothing that we can do to change that. there is talk of potential state legislation out there. we cannot control that. we must act affirmatively and accordingly in compliance. the time for transition, we expect there will be transition commencing on february 1. we believe it may last until at least march 30th it, there was a conversation to the budget discussion with you on how housing should be structured as a move forward and how they should be implemented.
the resolution does provide oversight board with the ability to oversee of the major development projects. each of these have plans that planning and the board have approved and are being implemented as such, for example in mission day, it is about half done. we're just getting started at hunters point shipyard, a phase one and phase two, both with a moving forward on alice griffith as well as the broader shipyard. this oversight board will have the ability consistent with our contractual obligations with our third-party developers to be able to implement these projects and the agreement
consistent with the city's obligation that we have with these third party developers. any further approvals consistent with those obligations and the oversight board will be able to prove so long at this does not increase the enforceable obligations. all of these major projects are on this and forcible obligation schedule. the comptroller has a role in making sure that the payments are made for these enforceable obligations, the oversight board improves these and whatever changes or additional contracts are made pursuant to those obligations. the oversight board approves that and then the state of california reviews that and the comptroller conduct an audit of those activities. there is a pretty good degree of oversight. the reason why we have structured and proposed to have
a coordinated management function is because their largest generators of economic activity, parks, affordable housing really left in the city. we have an important obligation to make sure that those continue to move expeditiously contrary to what the speaker said. the oversight board will not have the ability to approve changes to those redevelopment plans consistent with how this board has acted previously for all plans. this board will approve those changes, if supervisor chu: thank you. i want to comment. in terms of the time line, we spoke to the february 1 deadline, and that is sending we're moving quickly on. today's legislation truly a firms to the successor agencies will be to receive assets and
obligations to the redevelopment agency, specifically indicating that affordable housing assets come in addition to the low and moderate-income housing fund, close to moe, and the others go to the department of administrative services under the city administrator. talks about the requirements for payment and performance, authorizes the oversight board, rescinds the redevelopment as ignition for treasure island, and makes findings under ceqa. it is laying out the framework under which we can address how it is we are going to be structuring 3 development activities going forward. i think that conversation about what we're going to be doing with affordable housing, work force training, and the existing projects, those are things that are still being worked out by the city and we have time to weigh in on that a part of the budget analyst recommendation is to have the board direct the budget analyst, perhaps to do additional analysis on other aspects, and
it is my intention, with the support of colleagues here, to bring a number of a follow-up hearings on the redevelopment agency in to get updates on what is happening, and at that juncture, to ask the budget alice to provide additional information to help make the decision. we are going to ultimately see this on at the budget, but we would like to see updates ahead of time so that we can have a meaningful way of winning in this process. i think it is going to be a important for us to deal with issues like stephanie -- staffing and what the organizational restructuring it will look like. we want to know what the revenues will look back. when it comes back to the general fund, that will have a direct impact on our budget. we want to know about the major projects and whether the enforceable obligations definition is action what is coming to be. we want to know about our low and moderate income fund and what is happening with affordable housing projects, in addition to other smaller projects in the carper folio. i think there is an awful lot of
information, a lot of decisions about staffing, parties, and organizational matters that will be coming before us. today is to make sure we are retaining the assets and steady -- stepping up the structure. if we do not pass the legislation to make sure we're the successor organization, it will go to the housing authority in terms of housing assets, and non-housing assets will go to a successor agency, to be determined by the state. because of his projects are so important to the san francisco community and to what we're doing here, it does not make sense for us to allow for that to happen. i absolutely would be supportive of this resolution, and i want to thank the departments and supervisors who have been involved. supervisor kim: thank you. i think addressed many of the points i was going to make. i actually think that this is a very narrow piece of what we're going to be doing in terms of the long term, with committing
three development activities and controls to the city and county of san francisco. that is why i am is supporting this resolution, because it is a limited number of things that we are required to do quired -- prior to february 1 in order to have any sort of plan to meet the state's debt like. as supervisor chu allied committing housing projects to the mayor's office of housing is a very natural fit. they had the expertise and capacity to do that. i am pleased to see that the city is fighting for the low mod fund remaining as a whole in the city for us to be able to develop, and all of the affordable housing projects we have promised that we desperately need to see built, and the dissolution of tida as a redevelopment agency. it has never acted as a a redevelopment authority. i think the things put forward in this resolution are basic. in terms of the oversight body,
i think they're fairly limited in some of the changes. they have to work with in the land-use plan that we have already passed and have gone through the legislative process here at the board. it is ltd. 23 project areas. we still have many other area plants that we have a lot of questions around, including south of market, yerba buena, which is no longer an area plan. but we still have many other questions that need to get addressed. this will be coming through the budget committee. many of the funds in development are going to be going through the property tax apportionment and will come back to the city. i think all 11 members of the board will be away in in terms of what our priorities are around economic development and workforce development. i want to make sure that we commit as much as we can, given the increased number of dollars that are coming back to the city on the promises we have made to
our communities. i support moving this forward. i also want to thank supervisor cohen for her work with the mayor's department and numerous departments. i think there many months, many trailing pieces that will be coming to us. this is not a hasten the process in terms of what we have to do by february 1. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim has made a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. supervisor avalos: just before voting, i feel we have to move quickly. i feel like i have not heard enough from members of the public, people who are involved with housing development, people who have concerns about the oversight board and how it works. i know we have to move quickly. i feel like we might need an
extra week. i am going to approve it going out of committee, and i will give its recommendation, this item, but i feel like it could come forward on tuesday with questions. i want to make sure that, you know, we expect that there will be some discussion that will happen at the full board that could lead to a continuance of the item. and if there are other ways that we might need to have a process that includes greater discussion and gives us more time, perhaps an extra special board meeting, i think that that is something worth considering. but i think there is a lot of questions that we could still have about this resolution and its unintended consequences. but for right now, i am willing to move it forward. but we could end up being in the board of supervisors with proposed changes that might need extra public comment that we should be prepared to deal
with. supervisor chu: thank you for your comments. supervisor kim: speaking to his point about questions that may arise to the board meeting tuesday, it is important for members of the public to be about to articulate the oversight bodies of 30 over land-use designations, and with that could mean and what that would not need. just so there's a clear understanding of the potential of that authority and what it means and what it does not mean so we provide a level of safety. comfort to folks that are worried about the plans as they exist today. supervisor chu: thank you. i expect the departments will be there on tuesday to address questions and concerns. are there any further comments before we vote?
>> a question for the deputy city attorney. because of the quick nature of this, not clear if we have had full public discussion, if we were to double that i am not sure i want to make this notion or not, but if we were to have this heard at the board of supervisors as a whole committee, if we made amendments that, in some cases, would be considered substantive, could that lead to a continuance at the full board? >> through the chair, supervisor avalos, if amendments were made at the full board next week, that would require a continuance, whether you see it at the committee as a whole next week or not. because it is the meeting at which the amendments are made, that then requires an additional opportunity and notice, an opportunity for the public to come and comment about the
changes that are made. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. i am fine in moving forward as is. supervisor chu: thank you. do we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations? we will take that without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us today? >> that completes the agenda for today. supervisor chu: thank you, we are adjourned.
all part is giving testimony today, please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is to to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. the next item is item c, approval of minutes, discussion and action for the meeting held on november 17, 2010, december 15, 2010, and april 20, 2011. commissioner lee: are we able to take all three at the same time? commissioner murphy: motion. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> the minutes are approved.
we're going to begin with the appeals. president lee, would you like to explain the allotted time? ouacommissioner lee: let's do te continued appeals first. is there a special process for continuing appeals? let's get an update from the department first on what is happening, and then we will hear -- is it the other way around? commissioner murphy: maybe we could let the appellate go first, if they have their request? commissioner lee: the first item is 1117 gary boulevard. >> each has seven minutes for the presentation, three minutes for each side for their rebuttal. >> i am the attorney for the appellant. i am here to request another continuance of this matter
consistent with an agreement that my client, the appellant, has with the department. we were here in november, requested a continuance to allow the processing of the permit application that have been filed by my client. application has been approved by the historic preservation. the permit was released by planning in the last week or so. it is now with dbi in a structural plan check review. my anticipation is the permit will be through in the next couple of weeks hopefully. at that point, once the permit is issued, it is clients intention to withdraw the appeal. i would hope the board would look at this as an opportunity to move this casey2ñiv÷ along, i would request a continuance. commissioner murphy: how much of a continuance? >> i think 60 days should be sufficient. commissioner lee: does the
department have anything to say? commissioner murphy: we agree with your decision. let's make it 90 days. commissioner lee: any public comment? >> e this item for 90 days. i need to do a roll-call vote. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. commissioner lee: ok, let's go 554 fell more strict -- filmore street. xópx#q>> acting senior building
inspector for the department. appeal number is 6753, address 554 filmore street. evaluation description, work includes removal of finishes, also to stained glass windows. an order of a bit with conditions, 10 days to respond, filing herman for notice of the evaluation period 60 days to obtain inspection approval. staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and impose a suspension. comy
filed for the permit? >> they have filed for the permit. the last entry was november 28, 2011. commissioner murphy: the permit they filed for, does that cover on, this would clear the violations. commissioner lee: no question with the appellant. no? >> i have nothing to report other than we filed for the permit a couple days after this hearing in november. commissioner murphy: so isn't
planning now? you did not receive the permit? >> yes, we received the permit. commissioner walker: do you want a continuation? >> yes, until we get the permit. commissioner murphy: does anyone know how long this would take? >> we could consider treating both cases similarly, if that is ok with you. commissioner walker: 90 days? commissioner murphy: i am not sure if that is enough, talking about planning. commissioner walker: maybe they could come back in 90 days to let us know. commissioner murphy: second. >> roll-call vote.
is the public comment on this item? thank you. we can continue with the vote on the motion. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. item e. new appeals to orders and abatement. 6755, 336 pear street. seven minutes for the department to speak, seven minutes from the appellant. rebuttal then public comments. >> members of the board, good
morning. chief housing inspector representing the department of building inspection in this matter. this is a case that is before you in which property owner has appealed the order of abatement issues by the director's representative, they are asking for more time to address the structure that is at the rear of the lot of record in this case. glñ is an eight-unit apt building at the front of the structure. i will be showing some photographs. here is the front of the subject building. this location is, in addition to being a parking area, drives through to the middle of the a lot. all of this is going to be germane with respect to the blighted conditions that have existed for some time. here is a real photograph.
here is the apartment building. then there is a space here where the driveway comes through the bottom of the building. the structure in question is here. this is at the end of the lot line. here is more detail -- commissioner murphy: are these eight units occupied? >> no, it is dilapidated. the front building, the apartment building, as we put in our staff report, is a fully occupied eight-unit building, with the dilapidated building in the back. that building is approximately here. i am going to show you a photograph of what the structure looks like. this is in your staff report. you cannot see all the structure, but the front portion has been collapsed, there has
been some shoring. we had been at this since may 2010, and as of this morning, there is not a building permit application to address serious blighted conditions. albeit, this is not the front of the,!ñr18 this building and adjacent properties have to deal with this. the property owner's representative will address this, i am sure, but the concern is whether or not they can legalize this. if they want to work with planning, that is totally up to them, but too much time has gone on. we spoke with the planning department yesterday, one of the team leaders. the maps clearly show, in 1919, this was a stable. later on, this was for a garage. we cannot find an