Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 26, 2010 8:30pm-9:00pm PST

8:30 pm
justice grant for a streetscape improvements for broadway avenue in chinatown. the national park service program called "preserve america "vote will support some of the preservation efforts in market and octavia. we got another environmental justice grant for our work on cesar chavez on another avenue. all of that is to say that we have been more aggressive about seeking grants, but as you recall last year we got a grant to hire a grant writer. that has more than paid off. [laughter] it has really helped a lot. we are actually able to hire some temporary staff because of all this grant work. we were able to do our small part to help the local unemployment rate in the process. i am very pleased and one to
8:31 pm
think staff for all the work on these grants. -- want to thank staff for all the work on these grants. because anne-marie is up this week and terrace sullivan is out ill today, i will be given the board of appeals report. i think i will jump to the board of appeals first. last night, the board of appeals heard the case i think you might be interested in, one of the lager, later hearings you have had in recent months, the medical cannabis dispensary at 2139 taravel street. there was a lot of testimony on that. the appellants appealed the issuing of the building permit and argued that the proposed mcd was located within 1,000 feet of community and recreation facilities and that the use would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. they also argued that the commission hearing was flawed because there was insufficient
8:32 pm
translation service. the department response was that the mcd code complying. what we identify as community facilities are not what the community was arguing would be those facilities. you argued that the mcd was neighborhood serving and that the nearest was more than 2 miles a -- 2 miles away. the board stood with the appellant on a unanimous vote that it was not appropriate for the neighborhood. they also found the commission hearing was indeed flawed because adequate translation services were not provided. the findings of that hearing and that decision have not been written yet. when we get those findings, we will look at them to see if they have implications for other cases as well. to the board of supervisors this week, there were several hearings that i think some commissioners attended as well. the land use hearing on monday -- supervisor campos's health
8:33 pm
care master plan legislation was before that again. several supervisors were there. the board did take action -- the committee took action and passed that three to nothing. it was passed on as a committee report to the full board, who heard it the next day. the board did pass that item on the first reading. with most of the changes that you had requested, although not all of them. this commission had suggested that there be a funding item for the plan that is not yet in place, although the supervisor has committed to working with us to find the funding for their work. there were other items having to do with the -- who decides on the consistency determination between the proposed medical use and the plan. the supervisor felt that could not go to the public health department but would stay with
8:34 pm
the planning department to make that decision. but that will go to the board, i believe, next week on further final lead. other items at land use -- the better streets use was there, the pieces of legislation you heard. that was recommended for approval to the full board unanimously. supervisor alioto-pier's legislation regarding ceqa review was continued and will be heard in the next week or two at land use. tuesday at the full board there was discussion of 1818 california st. regarding a mills act contract. the board continued it one week to slightly modify the contract, specifically to tap the annual refund in taxes to about $23,000. the legislation you heard on mobile food facilities was heard
8:35 pm
at the full board, to modify both the planning code and the public works code. that was also passed at the board at first reading. there was a resolution by supervisor mirkarimi related to sacred heart church and removal of items from the facility located on fillmore street. that was to encourage cbi to further -- dbi to further investigate the work done without a permit, specifically removal of the rose window and other interior features. that was passed 7-4. there were two appeals heard this week, one for 10 bernal heights, the wireless power facilities a top bernal heights hill. you passed a conditional use in 2008 that capped the number. the owner was required to have all their leases legalize the
8:36 pm
antennas as well as install landscaping and maintenance. that was approved. excuse me. the project appeal was a modification approved by the commission in july 2010 this year. that was for clear wire. the board upheld the appeal 11- 0. i think this is meant to say that upheld the project. but they overturned the conditional use. they upheld the environmental review but overturned the conditional use because they felt the owner has not complied with the wind scaping and maintenance on the site. -- landscaping and maintenance on the site. we are working with the owner to bring them into compliance with the 2009 conditional use. with that, i think that includes all of my reports. thank you. >> commissioners, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday.
8:37 pm
and of the items on their calendar, the one item that i think would be of interest is that they passed the south mission historic resources survey, with some modifications. the wanted to drop be descriptive term of victoriana from the potential shopwell district. but wanted the end of mission street to be categorized as 7n. da wanted a parcel on the map regarding city college, mission college, whichever one you want to call it. the survey contained some language regarding the fact that historic district will require additional consideration, and that the boundaries of many of those districts might change. there should be some language that recognizes that additional work is needed for the addition of cultural resources and contemporary resources. that further research be done on
8:38 pm
the mission street entertainment and commercial historic district center. that is centered on the new mission theater. there should also be further research to nonprofits, businesses, and residents about what historic district might need in that area. finally, they ask that there be some additional research of ethnic and cultural history. that is in the past 50 years in terms of latino, mexican, chicano, and hispanic contributions throughout the history of that neighborhood. any commissioner questions? commissioner antonini: secretary avery, i have a few questions about that historic service. perhaps we can get more information about a variety of the areas in the mission and soma areas that are being surveyed. does this mean these districts are going to be established, or
8:39 pm
are they merely surveying it and making it possible? i guess that is the gist of the question. maybe we could learn more about that in the future. >> ok, and i will make sure you get copies of the survey. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> with that, we can move on to your 15 minutes general public comment category. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. keep in mind this category has a 15 minute time limit and they may not address you on any item that is calendared today. i know miss espanola jackson is here to speak with you today. and i think those are -- president miguel: espinola
8:40 pm
jackson and rich warner. >> espinola jackson, hunter's park. i see i have one minute. i want to bring to your attention -- i am not sure you saw on the news last week where in mexico this hotel blew up. i have come before you many times telling you what is out in bayview hunters point, especially the shipyard. we have also told you that methane gas is burned all the time there. you can see it. so when you are making your decisions, especially when it is a conceptual plan that is nothing but a pipe dream -- that is not what it is supposed to be. i want you to start looking and understanding very carefully about how you move on things.
8:41 pm
i am concerned and you need to be concerned, because you have made some drastic decisions concerning people living over there at that shipyard. i have thought about this. i will let you all know to think about it some more. you always vote for what is looking good and say, "i like this plan." you may like the plan, but the plan is not good. thank you very much. president miguel: ann tilhorse, rich wormer. >> i am a dr request for for 35 lloyd street and my architect will be speaking on my behalf. >> my name is joe butler. i represent three dr request is at would street. on october 15, your commission heard this case. you specifically directed the
8:42 pm
sponsor's architect in asking for a continuance to december 2 to work with us to redesign the building. the building does not fit the site. on a new building, there is no reason for a variance. that was typical for the commissioner comments. at minimum, we can expect a presentation that resonates with consensus. that was commissioner more. there have been no meetings with the project sponsors to date. despite repeated requests by the neighbors, our first meeting with the sponsors will be friday. thanks to staff for having organized it. the sponsor has stalled any new meetings for five weeks. now the staff deadline of november 15 for final revisions -- there is a unilateral revision which has been submitted. it has nothing to do with anything we heard at the hearing or suggested. there is no change in the light wells. instead of one variance, now
8:43 pm
they need to. the building has reduced in size by eight tenths of 1%, 40 square feet. they did reduce the height of the building by 3 feet. they added a deck at the roof which will require a 30 inch parapet, thereby negating any reduction in the height. we would like for this to appear on december 2 under items to be continued. we would jump at the chance to meet with the sponsors on friday. we hope to begin a dialogue at that point. aaron is responsible for submitting a staff report to you on tuesday if this is good to be heard on december 2. we have only just now received the plans, and the late. -- and late. the neighbors understand and heard you very clearly. somehow, the sponsors did not. i do not know who they are. i do not know what their connections are. but they do not feel as though they need to talk to us.
8:44 pm
they feel as if they are in control of their own destiny and we are just the past annoying them, biting at their ankles. we have a talented team assembled. we are of one mind about what we want and we have been very clear about it. would you please make sure this is not heard on december 2 so that the process you directed the sponsors to engage in can actually have time to occur? thank you very much for your consideration. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is rich warren. i am with jordan park improvement association. jordan part is a family neighborhood. we actually have children riding bikes and playing in the streets. about a month ago, we met members of the jordan part and francisco heights with the 4735 project sponsor, and agreed to
8:45 pm
terminate the need for valet parking 24-7. president miguel: you cannot speak on an item on the agenda. >> we were told this is our opportunity to speak. president miguel: there will be a separate action. >> i am sorry. i was called. but i got half of it out. president miguel: it will take half of the rest of the time, i am sure, rich. >> i have something for the overhead. president miguel: just place it face up on the trade. -- tray. it will come up in a minute when you start talking. >> i will be brief. this is 8 1900 turn of the century bernal heights victorian house.
8:46 pm
john soto. this is being significantly rebuilt with passat -- facade alterations and a permit illegally issued without a stamp. i am asking that somebody do something about that. scott sanchez has been advised. 10 lundy's lane. >> aaron goodman. i am speaking on the transit issue you spoke about, commissioner moore. i find it a very important thing throughout the city with the housing project being pushed through in all districts of the city. where are we seeing a sincere effort that major infrastructure projects in a lot of areas where
8:47 pm
we have low and middle income areas, such as the mission, along the 14 muni corridor or 19th avenue or geary boulevard -- how are we going to deal with all this housing being built throughout the city if we cannot do the transportation first? it reminds me of a story called "the biggest house in the world" where it keeps growing and growing and pushing and pushing, and eventually, it is stock because they cannot go anywhere anymore. when are we going to be a planning commission that is going to adequately address the transportation needs of a whole city? you may not be able to do it as individuals. we may not be able to do it, but we are getting there. if 19th avenue is locked up, merced is blocked up, the mission is blocked up, geary is
8:48 pm
getting to that point. there comes a point where the automobile and the problems we are facing must be addressed by this commission -- by the planning department and this commission. we cannot keep growing as we are where we are going to be stuck in the shell we have made for ourselves. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on items that are not on the agenda? if not, general public comment is closed. >> thank you, commissioners. you are now on public comment category on agenda items where the public comment may have been close. at this time, and a member of the public who wishes to address this commission on the agenda regarding a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify in the public hearing has been close, members of the public may speak at this time. the only in this relates to on
8:49 pm
this calendar would be item 10. each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes. commissioner miguel: we ready now? sorry about that. >> we met with the project sponsor about a month ago, and we agreed to terminate the need for valet parking 24/7. i thought what we agreed to was that any time there are 50 or more attendees in the conference room at 3575, the project sponsor would have valet parking. we thought it was any time. the project's sponsors
8:50 pm
subsequently changed that and made it just during the hours of 8:00 to 5:00 monday through friday. we cannot live with that. weekends and nights are very important. the reason is that the environmental impact report specifically says that there will be four meetings a month and most of the meetings will be on nights and weekends. that is in the environmental impact report. in the meeting two weeks ago, the project sponsor said there would be two meetings a month, mostly during business hours. the project sponsor also said that the cost of those meetings would be $300,000 a year. if the project sponsor really had 24 meetings a year that they talked about last week, that would be $12,500 per meeting. obviously, if that was the fact, we would agree to that. we would not want them to spend $12,500, but we went out in town and got a company -- a valet
8:51 pm
company that is $27 an hour. for four hours, it would cost approximately $100, which is a lot different than the $12,500 the project sponsor was talking about. we implore you to talk to the -- have the project sponsor be a good neighbor. we are trying to be good neighbors. we have to live together for a long time. this is a $60 million project. this project has 150 employees on site every day. we have to do this thing right. what we are asking is to remove the wording "during regular business hours monday through friday except holidays 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." if we remove those few words, the neighbors will be happy. i think the project sponsor will be happy. i think the city will be happy.
8:52 pm
commissioner miguel: thank you. lee bennett, and another speaker who submitted a card without their name on it. >> good afternoon. i represent francisco heights student association, and we are south of the project, and we did agree when we met with the project sponsor that the imposition of having the parking, the original use 24/7 was financially untenable. we thought that the compromise of only having the valet during those times, which they stated would be maybe two four times a month, probably close it twice a month, where there are meetings of over 50 people, would benefit the neighborhood. it would make the neighbors very happy, knowing that there are not 25 or 30 people circling the block trying to find parking.
8:53 pm
we see this as a simple compromise that we hope you will consider favorably. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> in case i was the person who did not put his name on there, regarding items that have been close, san francisco university's master plan is what i wanted to mention briefly. there was a memorandum of understanding between the city and san francisco state university. that has never been addressed by this commission or the planning department in regards to institutional growth. commissioner miguel: this is this item. it is very specific in there. i know you can read it.
8:54 pm
>> on behalf of the institute on aging, i do not typically speak on these issues, but i wanted to address a couple of clerical matters raised by the last two speakers. first of all, it is unfortunate there was a misunderstanding as to what agreement was reached. my client did not agree that whenever there are events at the meeting facility that there would be valet parking. what we agreed was that during business hours -- we thought the understanding was that we would have valet parking. that was in the draft condition that staff prepared for you, so i urge you to accept the staff recommendation. the second point -- there are 105 employees, not 150. what is important is that during times in the evenings and weekends when the ioa would be
8:55 pm
hosting events, those 105 employees are not on site. so their vehicles are gone. there are 37 parking spaces in the garage. those will be empty on weekends and evenings, and we feel very confident that those 37 spaces will accommodate the attendees at meetings. the conference facility only has a capacity of about 100 people. more than 1/3 of those can be accommodated on site, and they all tried -- unless they all tried and all drive alone. eir mentions 143 empty parking spaces, and there is no evidence that that has changed since it was completed in 2006. the final point is that the cost of providing valet parking when it is not needed is substantial. valet companies charge for a
8:56 pm
minimum of ours. it is difficult to get them to work for only a couple of hours for a reputable valet service company. we believe the cost would be substantially higher than the estimate mr. warner provided. to give valet parking on evening and weekends when there's 37 and the parking spaces in a garage, it is a significant cost and it comes out of services that they could provide to seniors, so we ask you support the staff recommendation, and appreciate your time. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on the item which has been closed? if not, public comment has been close. >> commissioners, at this time,
8:57 pm
you are at consideration of findings and final action. the public hearing for this category is closed. the item before you is item 10, case number 2010. 0583c, for 3575 geary boulevard. >> good afternoon, commissioners. although there is no staff presentation, there has been one addition to the draft motion. it is related to the ceqa finding which summarizes the memo to file that you already have a copy of, and i would like to read that finding into the record. "the commission finds that the project as revised here is consistent with and within the scope of the original project analyzed in the april 6, 2006, final environmental impact report.
8:58 pm
the project as revise here will not bring any new significant impact, compared to those for the original project, nor will it result in any increase in severity of any of the impacts identified in the final eir. the project as revised year will not require major revisions of the final eir -- the project as revised here. we find there has been no change in circumstances and no new information concerning significant effects or mitigation measures under which the project as revise here is to be undertaken that would require major revisions of the final eir. based on these facts, the commission finds that no subsequent eir is required. moreover, the proposed revisions are so minor in scope and tight that no addendum to the final
8:59 pm
eir is required. this concludes my summary of the findings." if you have any questions, i am happy to answer them. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner olague: i would like to move to approve those conditions. >> second. commissioner antonini: i think we have to slow down a little but on this. i have received many e-mails, as i'm sure we all have, from neighbors with concerns. i think we have gone a long way from the original conditions, which required valet parking 24/7, which is not needed unless there is an event. i think the idea that valet parking could be provided when there is an event with 50 or more persons is not unreasonable. i do not know what figures the project sponsor might have,