more to address environmental injustice is in the southeast neighborhood, including sewage and waste water treatment plants. there are major changes happening to the plant. this is a very large project. $4.6 million. roughly a little over $3 million will be spent in the southeast part of the city. and i want to urge you to be vigilant as well. there will be more of a process around this particular area. i would encourage you to support the board of supervisors as we look at technologies that would help to eliminate the stench that exists at the waste water sewage treatment plant. however, today we are dealing with a zoning issue. the project is proposed to be

7000 square feet down from being 15,000. the zoning change that we are discussing is a slight modification. the way it had been sound was only for 5000 square feet. this is the process that we have to go through, which would accommodate project requests. i am confident that this will be inappropriate place for the location in and look forward to implementing this important project. the need is undeniable. not only for mental health, but support throughout the city as a community. not just our youth, but seniors who are just as vulnerable as young children. i am here to a firm support for

the rail yard to make sure that safety is the number-one priority. not just the patience of the clinic, but the overall constituents of the southeast part of the cities. colleagues, i humbly request that you support this project. thank you. supervisor mar: i know that we have an amendment to deal with, but i also know that we have a comment from supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i was just point to make a motion to move it forward. supervisor cohen: does their need to be a motion to accept the amendment? supervisor mar: is there a motion to accept the amendment? i wanted to first say that night -- that i really appreciate the work of dr. burke and ms. albright. especially for the tipping point, putting tremendous faith

behind it. i am just looking at a map. there is great access in the hill as well. location, location, location is critical for the success of centers that have the most vulnerable success in the city. i also see that there is transit along third street. a. davidson stopped at another stop. i hope that the parking and other issues can be worked out. a number of the people with concerns from the neighborhood raised issues that i feel passionate about. from the environment to when development happens, making sure that we are falling the protections for the neighborhoods that are the most polluted. but, i know that this is a zoning issue that will create a person -- first in the nation

spot that will help children, that many of the activists are committed to. it is an issue of being the right location. i know that the doctor said that there were several different locations. you will have strong air quality filters and monitors within the facility. every protection will be made as they come to the clinic. i am going to weigh this in favor to the benefits in the neighborhood and children and families who have spoken out. i know that many of the environmental justice groups are not against the project itself, but had questions about it being the proper site. i will go with supervisor: -- supervisor cohen on this one. i hope that if the property

owner that is right on the corner that was not identified, that was a big problem that the planning department did not notify everyone. i am hoping that he overlooked of the notice, or that it was a mistake. i will be going over that information as well. it is in the best interest of children, not just in this neighborhood, but others in the city, in dealing with trauma and mental health issues in the neighborhood. we have an amendment. we have already adopted that. can we support the ordinance as amended, without objection? >> i believe that this comes out of the committee report. supervisor mar: moving this forward for tuesday's board meeting, tomorrow, january 31. >> i would move that we move it forward -- supervisor wiener: i would move that we move it

forward with a positive recommendation. supervisor mar: thank you for coming out, everyone. [applause] supervisor mar: please read ordinance no. 2. >> [reads ordinance] >> that afternoon. i am with the planning department and then happy to provide background material on this. currently, the department of public works administers the project for expanding sidewalk with. -- width. each change to the sidewalk required by the board of supervisors, including widening, this was established in an

ordinance 1061. that was approved on may 11, 1910, and no changes have been made since that date. the action today is having the board authorized the change as to how sidewalk is approved. it would authorize the department of public works to approve these changes. these would be limited to a sidewalk ball bounce, corner bulbs, and widening projects for those that are limited to one block in length. anything larger than that would be reviewed under the existing process, which requires review by planning departments, staff, and staff of other city

departments. again, other changes to sidewalks would not be affected by the ordinance before you today. the process would be that the department of public works would submit this material to planning and other departments, which would respond to the proposal, provide a recommendation. if the department was able to provide a general fund, that would be the recommendation. if there were concerns about that, staff could require the existing process in place, with complete general point referrals, to their board to take action. the department of public works and other agencies working on this, it may be longer than last year, the general fund referral is strapped ordinance before you

today. they found the ordinance on balance and in conformity with the general plan. the department is determined that the project, as it is laid out, does not require environmental review, although it individual projects might require review in the future. that completes my presentation. i would be glad to answer any questions. supervisor mar: i was calling to ask if supervisor wiener, the chief on this, has any comments or questions. supervisor wiener: this will help to create more efficient improvements, so that streets are more livable and walkable, and multi-modal. >> thank you. the intent is to the project forward as consistent with the

adopted street plan. staff would be able to review projects to make sure that those of the case before moving forward. supervisor mar: meaning that instead of coming to the board of supervisors for the minor issues that they would agree on, it gives more authority to the department of public works, consulting with other agencies as needed. correct? >> yes, thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. >> staff and the department of public works is here as well, if you would like to hear from them. supervisor mar: yes, thank you. >> department of public works here. i would like to emphasize that upon adoption of the street

plan, we have seen more and more projects coming through for minor sidewalk changes, with individual projects. they do not exceed one linear block. this would expedite and make the process much more efficient. we recommend -- our director has recommended in approval of this item. supervisor mar: thank you. it is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? >> two minutes? three minutes? supervisor mar: 3 minutes. you may be only one at this time. >> when i raise these issues about agenda items and so forth, this seems like a good example of what the public is more and more precluded from

participating in. decisions are turned over to planning, planning agrees with dpw, and it is all well and good that the people who work for the city who have no vested interest, as they do not live in the community, all agreed that it is an important process. what happens when there is a project on which they are given no input and the only chance that they have is the one here, which is pretty much in one person's mind, a done deal. you already approved it, the planning department has approved its. all of you, basically, the government had approved it. i think that we saw this in the last agenda item. how many of those people said that they came down near because they heard about it today.

it may be well and good for the public to keep track of city hall, but i do this every day of the week and i have a hard time following it. let me show you something. that is my american mensa card. i say that not just to brag, but to show that i have a modicum of intelligence. i read through this stuff and i look at the attachments that you put on your web site. i cannot tell what the heck this is. it says -- making various changes. what are the changes going to be? you get up here and you have the people do a report and they talk about ball bounce. you may understand this because it comes before you all the time, but do the members of the public? that last item was about a

medical clinic, i know that. where was that? why was it? anything else? i do not know. basically, these things are put on the agenda -- you could say, are they properly agendaized? you waltzed on the sunshine ordinance. president chu was found to be in violation of the sunshine ordinance. the members of the public that are most affected by these issues, to have them come before you, present their pockets and give you ideas -- one of the people just remarked to me that that is the way it is amended. supervisor mar: is there anyone else that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: i would like to forward this to the full board with a positive recommendation.

this would be a significant improvement in making it safer for pedestrians, improving the vibrancy of our commercial district and creating more public spaces that are not for cars, for people who have a very important step forward in that process. supervisor mar: can remove this forward without objection? thank you. let's call item no. 4. >> would you like to call four, five, and six together? supervisor mar: yes, please. >> item #4. ordinance amending the san francisco planning code by: 1) adding and amending various sections to implement the glen park area plan, bounded generally by chenery street to the north, roanoke street to the east, san jose avenue and bosworth street to the south, and elk street to the west; 2) creating a new section 738.1, establishing zoning controls for code section 101.1.

item number 5. ordinance amending the city and county of san francisco zoning map sheets zn11 and ht11 to: 1) create a new zoning district, and amend height and bulk districts within the glen park area plan, as proposed in the glen park community plan; and 2) making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. item no. 6. francisco general plan by adding the glen park area plan; and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. supervisor wiener: this neighborhood began a lengthy process, that i have to say i have been involved in a number of labor brought that this and this is the most thorough and inclusive neighborhood process i have seen. there was a high level of anticipation in terms of public meetings, breakouts, brainstorming, not just people listening to what is going on, but people putting their ideas in, back in 2003. there was a lot of clamoring

over the years about when it would move forward. well, it is finally moving forward. this plan would allow for some very positive changes to the zoning. to allow for smarter development patterns and a more transitive focus for the neighborhood. funding permitted, monday assisting some of the transit problems in the area, around the bart stations at the diamond in the bas worth, etc. i look forward to the presentation today. going forward, i ask for your support. the planning department, i cannot even count the number of community meetings that i have attended with them. they have the patience of job

and an uncanny patients with the community. i believe that this is his last public meeting, before early retirement. after more than 20 years with the city, i wanted to thank you for your service and the products they will be presenting today. gentleman? >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the planning manager for the park community planning department. i am one half of the john and john team. the plan was unanimously approved by the commission back in november. we are happy to bring it before you today. today i would like to start with a background history on the plan, then give you the description of the proposal contained within.

as the supervisor mentioned, this is a process that has been going on for a number of years. we have been out in the community wholeheartedly, without partner incident. we have had a series of public workshops and have met with individual neighbors and hundreds of residents to craft a vision for when park. -- glenn park. as i am sure the you are aware, it is located in south-central san francisco and is well connected to the city and the region by the bart system and the freeway. really, what is special about the neighborhood is that small- town feel, which is unique in a

big city like san francisco. residents refer to the commercial district there as the bart village. there is also the nearby canyon park with its dramatic outcrops and hills. just a quick review of the history, this area was once ranch land back in the 1800's. it also became known as little as determined, because of the number of dairies and alpine conditions. in 1892, the city's first electric streetcar was built in the ferry building, in downtown san francisco. this was in hopes of bringing people out to the neighborhood to buy real estate. but it was 1996, the earthquake, which brought most people into the neighborhood as it became a refugee camp at that time. these were the refugee shelters at the time.

many of the residents are staying and buying up cheap lots. the commercial district of the village was well established. you can see that this time, the streets are empty. the streets were paved in the mid-1920's. the planning area is quite small, compared to the ones that have come before you. this is 12 blocks or 13 blocks, stretching from the park to santa fe ave. the main focus is the six blocks around the bart station, encompassing the commercial district and streets that are nearby. another feature of this area is that it is a highly transit and pedestrian area. we have about 9000 writers succumbed to the area each day that ride shuttle buses. what is amazing is that over half of them arrive by walking through the area.

the key issues that glen park faces our transportation in circulation issues every morning. we have have minibuses and thous of pedestrians and there is conflict and concerns about pedestrian safety. and boarding. the scale of some of a large infrastructure that has come into the area over the last 50 years has increased accessibility of the area but impacted some of the livability. here's a picture of 1948. it can see the diamond and bonds worth intersection. it is mostly built out. it was transformed by the freeway development of the southern freeway in san jose avenue. -- and san jose area. -- avenue. you can see how the streets brought traffic into the area

and created barriers between neighborhoods. san jose avenue and of course started as a train line and was widened over the years into an auto route. as part of the freeway building plan in the 1960's that was an entrance to the larger freeway call the mission freeway which would have extended through the mission district but was halted. we're left today with the san jose expressway which the plan addresses. the third issue is growth and change. while glen park is a pretty built-out area, there are fewer development sites and there's a lot of strong interest among residents about what will happen in those areas. i wish to make it -- they wish to make it compatible with existing area. to the general policy recommendations are to protect and enhance the character of the village, its workability. to resolve the challenges posed by the infrastructure projects.

for example, san jose. to prioritize transit and pedestrian movement in this corridor area and establish connection to glen canyon park and look for opportunities for open space in this busy area. there is a number of community improvements that the plan proposes. these are short-term and long- term. some of the more near-term products we're looking at our improvements near the bart station area. this is an aerial photo showing that. we're looking at creating pedestrian improvements around the diamond and bosworth area. we would like to install new pedestrian crossings were possible and redesigned the bart plaza to make it function better for pedestrians and transit. san jose as i mentioned, the idec here is to do some fixes that can slow the as speeds and the freeway-like nature of san

jose avenue and a larger effort that would do of planning and redesign of the street. this could be -- open up connections across the different neighborhoods that the street is a barrier between. and possibly increase access to the church. open space improvements, the plan identifies the bart placer redesign. looking for ways to create open space in the neighborhood area. one of the great ideas about creating this glen park greenway which would connect the commercial district to glen canyon park. and of course, another unique feature in the neighborhood is the creek runs under the park and the only remaining remnant is the free-flowing peace within glen canyon park. the plan proposes conducting a study to see if there is opportunity for daylighting or

raising the creek. there are concerned about what this might do or not do but that is the idea of conducting a story -- study to see about feasibility. in terms of the land use aspects, it is a pretty low-key plan in terms of development compared to the other plans. this is a page from the city's general plan that talks about the different plan areas and how many units are expected. in glen park we're projecting 100 units. this is a big development plan. the existing zoning in the area is nc2 in the core village neighborhood district. neighborhood commercial, small scale. surrounded by residential rh1 and rh2 zoning and public parcels. the plan addresses the neighborhood commercial zoning and focuses on that. that is 80 parcels. it is a small area we're doing. the plan proposes creating a

glen park neighborhood commercial transit district to support the walk ability and transit orientation of the area. this would introduce transit oriented zoning standards such as for moving the density limits and parking requirements. this new glenn parker neighborhood commercial transit district would give glen park its own name and special zoning district and expand the district slightly by incorporating nine additional parcels, two of these are commercial properties that function as part of the commercial district but are notd formally included so we bring them back into the fold. there is a row of buildings across from the board's statement that -- station that would be rezoned. allow flexibility for future commercial uses. and the bart parking lot. bart has indicated they are interested in pursuing development on their parking lot. it is a 54-based parking lot

across from the bart station. they have not come forward with any proposal at this time. the time does not proposed rezoning that parcel at this time. it is p for public use and would require rezoning for mixed use development. the plan supports infill. that may make sense given its proximity to the bart station and the commercial district. bart has indicated they are interested in conducting a community process specific to the lot that a rezoning of the parcel would need to come out of that. and building height. this is a photo down diamond street. as you can see, a lot of the buildings here, it has a continuous street wall of 30 feet. this is -- there's a portion of the glen park neighborhood

district that has a small scale. we heard it is important to residents as an indicator of this village atmosphere. as we looked at this, the small street in the scale of the buildings, we identified this as a more sensitive area in the district. there is some views that these heights allowed to the surrounding canyon. and the current high districts in the area, everything is a 40 foot-- district. it would create a 30-foot district. throughout the glen park district we would allow a five- foot height bonus for larger ground floors and that would allow potential heights up to 35 and 40 feet within the district. the implementation program. we want to make sure all these great projects are moving