tv [untitled] May 19, 2013 12:00am-12:31am PDT
12:00 am
this has been long overdue for the seat to be filled. please approve senator alicia duke without any objection so that the task force can continue [speaker not understood] can continue to work that we had started in 2006 and this work needs to be continued. thank you. >> thank you. thank you again. excuse me. thank you again, supervisors. james cansini [speaker not understood], speak strongly in favor of m. alicia duke for this seat. she's a long-time member of our organization. she served on our board. she's a member of my health care action team. we go to outreaches. we testify at city hall. you've probably seen her here before and at sacramento, and as well m. alicia duke has a very analytical mind and we often rely on her for [speaker s
12:01 am
whether or not we like it she'll tell us, there's a misspelling here. she's experienced in the nonprofit and community organizations and i would highly recommend her for this. this is critical for stabilizing the area that's being impacted. low-income seniors, people with disabilities are being put out -- they're being moved out of soma for economic reasons. and, so, it's very important to have somebody from this community, from this constituency who knows exactly who is on the ground, in communication with everyone there. strongly support m. alicia duke. thank you very much. ~ sam alicia duke. >> thank you. again, good afternoon, supervisors. i'm here for the real reason to support sam duke. now, james only mentioned about her association with senior and disability action. my background with her goes way back -- i mean, way back to the
12:02 am
early days of para transit ~. she was very good in para transit, very good advisor in para transit, and still is a great advisor in para transit. when we're forming para transit, speaking on rides, how we should put it together, she continues on that, very knowledgeable, and takes that same kind of information from where she lives, i also live in the soma area the last three years and i do other community work there. i'm the garden coordinator at drake's park. all the work she's done, she attends a lot of meetings. she is very attentive, has good opinions, helps people work things through. i can't think of a better candidate for this position. thank you. and no jokes. [laughter] >> okay, no jokes. supervisors, any thoughts? >> i'm happy to move m. alicia
12:03 am
duke forward with recommendation to the soma community stabilization community stabilization fund community advisory committee. >> okay, this would be for seat 3. >> supervisor, would you like to close public comment? >> any other public comments? seeing none, it's closed. [gavel] >> there was a motion and a second. with no objection, the motion passes. [gavel] >> item 6. >> item number 6, hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending april 10, 2015, to the graffiti advisory board. there is one seat and one applicant. >> congratulations. good afternoon, supervisors. it is an honor to be here. my name is dan kling. i work for ecology and i'm seeking seat 15 on the graffiti
12:04 am
advisory board. i'm with the s.f. business seat. again, i work on the city-wide recycling team for ecology. as a district 5 homeowner and father, my wife and i are committed to seeing our child grow up in the city and we want to -- i would like to see a blood-free city. another element in my application is i'm a former educator at the secondary level before the ecology career. and i think that provides a different angle on the idea of graffiti having worked with children who sometimes participate in that and gives me a broader perspective. and finally, i've been an active environmental and clean up causes my whole life and i hope that helps. finally, i wouldn't consider myself a cranky old-time san franciscan. i've lived here since 2005. i think i bring a sunny can-do attitude to the committee and would be an honor to serve on it. nothing against olims, ocourse.
12:05 am
hopefully you'll consider my application. thank you very much. >> thank you, dan. supervisors, any thoughts? sorry. any public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisors, supervisor breed? >> yes. thank you for notifying us that you are a property owner because this seat is for someone who is a property owner and i'm happy to find out the property owner in my district, district 5, happy to move you forward with recommendation for the graffiti advisory board. >> second. >> seeing no objections, motion is passed. [gavel] >> thank you very much for wanting to serve on the graffiti task force. appreciate it. thank you. >> madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, mr. chair. >> is there -- if there's nothing further, the meeting is adjourned. [gavel] >> thank you very much.
12:06 am
12:07 am
kim will be joining us momentarily. >> clerk: please silence all cell phones. thank you. i want to thank sfgtv for broadcasting today specifically caroline and jennifer loe. just a couple housekeeping matters, if anyone is here for item no. 6, relate together condo lottery legislation item no. 6, it is my intent to enter a motion when this is called to continue the item one week to may 20th. this item last week was transferred from the full board this eefor a
12:08 am
hearing today but we are not yet ready to proceed with that hearing. if anyone is here for item no. 6, it's my intent to enter a motion to continue the item in one week. in addition if you are intended to make any public comment for any item on the agenda please fill out a card and please indicate the agenda item number for the item you would like to speak. madam clerk call item no. 1. >> 130070 [planning code - duboce park historic district]1300701.sponsor: wienerordinance amending the planning code, by adding a new appendix n to article 10, preservation of historical, architectural, and aesthetic landmarks, to create the duboce park historic district; and making findings, including environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and planning code, section 101.13 >> i'm as the sponsor. before us today is consideration of the first new article 10
12:09 am
historic district. this is approximately 3 small blocks in length bounded by the waller street and scott street and dead-end streets. district includes 87 buildings and i would call the planning department to provide an overview of the district. there are folks here from the district today. i see supporters and opponents of the district and this district has undergone a spirited discussion over the last few years. the district underwent and extensive community process after it was identified as a potential district as part of a survey associate with the plan. shortly after i took office we
12:10 am
began holding a number of community meetings over the past two years approximately 8 different community meetings including planner workshops that the planning department conducted in local cafes. numerous people participated. we have taken significant community feedback about the scope of the district and this district is actually i believe the most narrowly crafted district than any historic district in the city in terms of what it covers and the items for which it requires historic review for certificate of appropriateness. the reason that is as narrow as it is on community feedback about not wanting the district to cover anything beyond the truly characters of the district. also my request because to me it was very important for any
12:11 am
district that we consider to be very narrowly and sharply focused on what actually makes this district historic and unique. for anyone in this propose district is truly one of the most beautiful areas of the city thanks in significant part to the people who live there who have absolutely transformed it and turned it into the beautiful neighborhood that it is next to one of the most beautiful parks in the city. this district also gave us an opportunity to take a look at how we administer the mills act which allows for tax credits for owners of historic property to maintenance contracts in the city. it's been used in a very robust ways and counties in the city of california has been somewhat
12:12 am
looser here. it was illusory for those small property owners. that became an apparent during the process around this district so i offered legislation working with the san francisco heritage and planning department for the use of the mills act. we have a usable miss act in san francisco and that was important to me because if we are telling residents in the district that they can get potential tax credits that they are in the district, i thought it was important that it should be reality and we have now made that a reality. after we went through this lengthy process with many community meetings with a lot of views expressed pro and con -- and everywhere in between, i requested the planning department conduct a
12:13 am
survey of the property owners in the district. you may recall that i temd to have that as a requirement in article 10 and i did not get that part of article 10 passed by the board but i nevertheless requested the planning department survey the residents and owners in the district because for me it was very important to have a good sense of what people thought. that survey was conducted late last year and 38 households responded only one response per households. there were some consolidated. 38 households responded and approximately 1/3 of the properties in the districts responded and the survey came out 2-1 in favor of the designation. after the survey there were those who raised concerned that the survey may not have gotten to
12:14 am
all home owners. my staff conducted significant due diligence looking back to make sure that every property was mailed and and in fact the mail had gone to every property and in addition the department and i had e-mailed to the district to alert about the survey and forwarded to the neighbors. as the survey, a very dedicated residents in the proposed district have been talking to their neighbors and i know have conducted their own survey and which shows a different result than the survey that the city did. i understand and respect that there is a diversity of viewpoints on this proposed district and that is precisely why and frankly insisted that
12:15 am
the planning department conduct a survey through the planning department using our official means so that we would know where people stood. that survey is an important piece of information, but i do acknowledge that this is not unanimously supported within the district, that there are opponents. we have tried very hard by drawing the district narrowly and by revamping the mills act. i want to address one item that i think keeps coming up the most more than other concerns and that is generalized frustration with our planning and dbi process in san francisco. i can tell you within this district but also elsewhere the number of times people have contacted our
12:16 am
process is taking too long, dbi process is taking too long, something is stuck somewhere and in terms of this district, we've heard that over and over again. i had this nightmare situation trying to change my windows or trying to put a garage in or whatever it might be, so why are you trying to put more process on us? i completely understand the general frustration with our planning and dbi process in san francisco. we don't resource the properly and things take too long and too complicated and too challenging for property owners. that is an issue that goes beyond this district. but i honestly believe this district will not have an meaningful impact with the experience that you are going to have with the planning department. this is will not
12:17 am
make it worse. it will make this beautiful architectural unique neighborhood thchl district only covers certain things. there are many many projects that will not require necessity additional scrutiny as a result of this district. in addition we have a created certificate of appropriateness which means that certain a lot of different projects that used to have to go to the historic preservation commission can now be handled by staff. there are some projects that will be easier under this district because there will be a lesser version of historic research. an evaluation report will be required and would otherwise be required under ceqa. i would like to in invite if there are no comments, planning
12:18 am
department mary brown to talk about the proposed district. >> we have a powerpoint presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, mary brown, department staff. i'm here to present the recommendation by the historic and planning commission for the proposed landmark district. both commissions were unanimous in the recommendation. the propose district is residential. 8 non-contributing buildings and 3 interior park.
12:19 am
it's remarkably intact in turn of the century with victorian detailing. many cottages were developed by fernando -- the district is also significant for the usual development history district in the way the contested nature of the tract impacted the district park. the proposed district is radioed -- rooted in the nearly decade plan. specifically the plan policy recommends landmark district in the area. the neighborhood group with the neighborhood association was engaged in the neighborhood planning process among many others and requested a survey
12:20 am
to inform and compliment the area findings. the proposed to both landmark districts was identified and strong candidate for local landmark designation. property owners were notice of these findings in 2008. because of architectural significance, high level of -- street boundary and long supportive group and the plan which recommended group of designation, the department recommended the hpc add the proposed district to it's landmark designation to the june 2011 hearing. property owners were notified of this hearing and including the standard review process for alterations. several neighbors and the dta and spoke if support of the process and no
12:21 am
one contacted the department or spoke in opposition. a dozens individuals properties added to the program in june 2011. once added to the work program the department engaged in an outreach process. beginning with a kickoff neighborhood history walking tour which was attended by dozens neighbors. it included community meetings, workshops and focus on the proposed district and also included three events that specifically focused on the future review of alterations to billions -- buildings in the district. >> one goal of this outreach was to gain a better understanding of the community's perspective regarding prioritization and review of the character defining features to address
12:22 am
these perspectives. discussions with stake holders led to a review process with certain scopes assigned levels of review from no change in the current review process, administrative staff level overview and review at an hpc hearing. key issues raised by the community include reducing or eliminating different scopes of work, reduce and review alterations at the rear building, increasing access to property tax savings by the mills program. i will outline the department's outlines to these issues. neighborhood feedback was used to guide discussions and revisions to the ordinance. the department significantly scaled back the level of review for certain scope of work and minimized the
12:23 am
review. the designation ordinance was revise d the maintain the current level of review. examples of this includes replacement of windows, garage doors, roof replacement, seismic upgrades and installation of solar panels and many alterations including fences and decks and stairways. these scopes of work were not required. additional staff review or fees. if the district is designated from projects would result in a faster review process with additional fee savings. for example a view large visible dormer would require a hearing however the review fees would be less than the state mandated
12:24 am
12:25 am
entitlements and other construction cost. during the community engagement process many property owners expressed interest in the property tax savings offered by the mills act and the application process presented a barrier to these savings. supervisor scott wiener sponsored legislation to amend the program to make the application process quicker and cheaper and more predictable. the department coordinated with the assess ors office and reduce the application fee. the program became effective in october 2012. also supervisor wiener proposed an online questionnaire. 34 property owners participated in the
12:26 am
november 2012 online poll -- and supported the project. a break down is found in your case report packet. recently the department has received e-mails both in support and opposition of the proposed designation of property owners opposed to the district. also made flyers produced which made information which are inconsistent which made these available at public events. in response to concerns raised in the flyers, earlier this month the department mailed an update to property owners to address misconceptions about landmark designations and clarify benefits and review process. in
12:27 am
conclusion the department has addressed concerns in the community outreach process and a landmark status is warranted. the commission has forwarded the recommendation for designation. as an aside i would like to submit a memo of non-substantive changes to the ordinance. this concludes my presentation. >> the last thing you say mention? >> there were a few typos in the designation order and it's non-substantive. >> thank you. i should also that as for public comment as an amendment as part of legislation we adopted last
12:28 am
year it set the uniform annual application deadline in may 1, to try to stream line this process. because it's going slower than we anticipated. the amendments that i'm proposed would provide that for this district only just for this year the deadline would be october first so if property owners choose can participate this year and then they will synchronize starting with may first deadline. >> i had a quick question because i haven't had a neighborhood in my district go through this process yet. you said there is about 32 participation with the actual vote? i was just wondering if that was the typical turnout. >> it's the first time we've ever conducted a poll. many buildings have multle
12:29 am
hapr to say exactly what the percentage would be. we said roughly 35 percent. >> so it could be that one property owner might own several properties. the total of property owners. >> correct. we were looking at the property owners in terms of percentages. it was in terms of property owners including multiple units. >> just to add to that we did actually mail to tenants as well but only 4 responded. i think they were split. some support it and some were not. thank you. any comments or questions? anything else from planning? >> we'll open it up to public comment. public comment will be two minutes. when you have 30 seconds left you will hear a soft bell and when you hear a
12:30 am
louder bell your two minutes has expired and you should wrap up. i will call a batch of names at a time. you do not have to testify in the order that i call you. you can just come up and lineup to my right on the side of the room. so we'll start with don cham bre, dennis lane, summerville, amy hock man, chris motley, john jones, brian nan, mr. cham bre? >> thank you supervis
34 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on