>> >> >> february 3, 2014, >> >> sfgtv >> city of san francisco

land use and economic development committee >> >>

good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. my name is scott wiener, i'm the chairman of the committee and jane kim and malia cohen. our clerk is os berry. i would like to thank

sfgtv for broadcasting today's hearing, jessie larson. madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes. please silence any cell phones and any electronic devices. please fill out a card if you wish to speak. items heard today will be in the agenda. >>supervisor scott weiner: please call item no. 1. the clerk: item 131185: airport's noise insulation program]1311851.resolution approving the acquisition of 33 avigation easements from various property owners in san mateo county to replace expiring avigation easements required for the san francisco international airport's noise insulation program projectt; adopting findings that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the california environmental quality act, class 1: existing facilities; adopting findings that the acquisition is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. the clerk: sf 11234 >>supervisor scott weiner: mr. up dike is here. >> today before you are

various avigation easements. these are located in two specific areas within daily city just south of the center just off the i 280. a little background, the state of california noise standards for airports is in title 21 of the state code which requires airports to land use. nearly 15,000 structures around sfo. we are affected in someway that require easements and/or improvements noise insulation to those homes. about 180 of those easements were secured with a 20-year term. those terms are now expiring and that is why we are before you today with new perpetual easements that succeed those 20-year term easements within the noise impact boundary. there is no fiscal impact, minor for the time and trouble of executing and notarizing a document and you have 33 of those before you today for

these avigation easements, we are seeking your authority to accept them. there will be more of these. you have seen these in the past and we'll continue to bring these forward. in your file you have a general plan conformity letter from the department of planning. happy to answer any questions you might have and am joined by the representative of the airport if you have program questions. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? okay. in that case we'll open for public comment.is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. colleagues can i have a motion for full recommendation. can we take that wow objection? that will be the order. >> madam clerk, please call item no. 2.

>> the clerk: item 2: agenda[planning code - transit impact development fee exemptions]1309382.sponsor: wienerordinance amending the planning code to revise deadlines for certain transit impact development fee tidff exemptions; eliminate project-specific references in exemptions applicable to redevelopment areas, and make such exemptions dependent on the terms of the controlling development agreement, redevelopment plan, interagency agreement or other contract entered into by the city; require that the tidf be calculated based on the rate in effect and the time of issuance of the first construction document; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> the clerk: sf 21234 >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i'm the author of item no. 2. this legislation before us makes technical amendments to the transit impact development fee by our board of supervisors unanimously in 2012. these amendments will ensure that all projects that are covered by the general transit impact development fee do pay this fee in all parts of the city. the transit impact development fee is a key part of our funding system for public transportation in the city and it is designed to ensure that development that general rates auto trips or other types of transportation trips pay their fair share to help cover

those transit impact. this is not the type of development assess the type of development fee. for example exemptions for housing and non-profit user fee remain as the development fee. instead the project and redevelopment areas are treated fairly and equitably and consistent with the adoptive plan for the area. this will help us develop good public transportation options in the neighborhood. this was considered by the planning commission last december and supported by the commission unanimously. in 2012, the legislative update to the transit impact developmentf ordinance by mayor lee included reference to some form of redevelopment area plan but not all. in working closely with occi, the planning department and mta, we agreed that the ordinance

needed to be clarified so that we would not have some plan areas covered by the transit development fee but not others. so, again, this ordinance does clarify the applicability of the transit impact developmentf and the extent to which it applies. for for example instead of calling out mission bay project from being exempt across the board, this legislation required deferral to the mission bay development plan. that plan states the project of mission bay were exempt for 10 years from the plan adoption and that expired 5 years ago. the legislation will not extend transit impact fees to mission bay which are more general to transit impact development ordinance. lastly the planning department will describe the ordinance to make other minor and technical amendment in terms of timing and fee collection in order

to make transit impact development consistent with other impact fees. i now want to invite lisa chen from the planning department to describe the legislation. miss chen? >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors. i'm lisa chen with the planning department. i'm joined by the planning department and from sf mta. the ordinance today is a proposal to amend the transit impact development fee, the city's primary mechanism for our transit system. the proposed ordinance would clarify and broaden language for projects subject to a development agreement or other similar agreement entered into by the city. the proposal also includes minor administrative improvement including changes

to deadlines providing certain types of the exemptions and timing and method of calculating the fee. collectively these changes are to simplify the administration and making it easiest for project sponsors to understand the policy and consistent with other impact fees. it's with new non-residential development to fund munis capital cost and system maintenance. due to increased service. the fee includes for residential projects, projects creating less than 800 square feet of new development. projects considered charitiably exempt and projects consisting of land uses. the proposed ordinance does not create new or ordinary categories of exemption. the main intent of the ordinance is to clarify the languages regarding the ordinance to a development

agreement or other similar document which would include a redevelopment plan, owner participation agreement, or inter agency cooperation agreement. for this project specifies the term of the development agreement or other similar document would determine whether or not the project would be exempt from transit impact development fee. the existing language which explicitly identifies mission bay only to all areas in the city for agreement which restrict the application. this acknowledges the fact that larger development projects may have transit impacts and structure needs and to make these improvements themselves. by entering into a development agreement or other equivalent agreement the city may

negotiate a packet that is captured in a citywide fee. the other changes proposed under the ordinance are intended to improve the administration of the fee. the proposal requires the fee be calculated in a rate of effect of the construction document which is consistent with other development impact fees charged by the city. currently the fees calculated base on the rate and effect and at the time of issuance of the building and site permit. finally the proposal would change the deadline for certain types of projects applied for exemption. this is projects owned by the city or other projects with wholesale stores and materials and equipment. during the last transit impact development it was expanded to a grandfather period to be allowed the pipeline to adjust their capital plan. in summary the department see's the proposed ordinance as a means towards

more clear and clarification and we recommend approval of the ordinance. i will be available for questions. thank you. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. colleagues any questions or comments? okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: first i'm happy to move forward with positive recommendation. i would like to thank the chair for being so vigilant about this issue because when it came up, i think we were under the impression that the grandfathering of the transit impact development fee came with some clean up. i'm glad we were able to capture these funds and treat the project fairly. which is important to me as well because folks that

come into development were getting a packet they have been promised through the regional development commitment. great to see this forward and happy to move this forward. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, supervisor with a motion to full recommendation to the board with positive recommendation and we'll take that without objection. that will be the order. madam clerk, please call item no. 3. the clerk: item 3: [hearing - code enforcement policies and procedures]1400213.sponsors: wiener; cohenhearing directed to the housing and building divisions of the department of building inspection, the planning department, the department of public health, and the fire department to report on inspection and enforcement of city code violations in san francisco's buildings, including internal departmental procedures for inspections, pursuit, and referral of violations; examples of problematic cases; requirements for referral of cases to the city attorney's office or departmental committees; description of types of cases, including examples, being referred to the city attorney's office or departmental committees; number and percentage of cases not being referred for enforcement and whether lack of referral for enforcement results from the merits of the case or other factors such as budget concerns; yearly statistics, including the number of cases received, the number of referrals made, the number of cases closed; and record-keeping practices, including ability of the public to track process of violations; whether legislation is needed to

ensure better coordination on code enforcement and more consistent enforcement and referrals by the various departments. the clerk: sf 31234 >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, i along with supervisor cohen are the coauthors of this hearing request. colleagues today we our city agencies against code violations in es our buildings in various parts of the city. this issue affects neighborhoods all over our city and supervisor cohen's district initially but impact all neighborhoods in one scale or another. we have seen buildings or properties with boarded upwind -- windows and broken stairs and piece of a building, significant pieces removed and neighboring construction work and never moves forward. some very tragic examples of extreme hoarding to the point where -- ingres or egress to the building and buyer hazard and obvious violations can sometimes last for years. and inspections occur, but there are times when at least it does not appear to the public that action is being taken by city departments. we have some situations in fact it's pretty common where we'll get calls

from neighbors saying i have been complaining about this blaetd dangerous property and nothing is happening. one of our charges is the complicated coding system involves quite a few departments requiring a lot of coordination and inter departmental communication. in addition it at least an appears at times from the outside that there may be decisions around code enforcement made based at least in part on budget because doing enforcement can be expensive and referring cases to the city attorneys office means the department will get billed to its budget and the budget does play a role here. it's also difficult at times to track what is going on with particular buildings because if different departments are involved and

at different levels to the accessibility to the data system. it's the most advanced giving people access but not all at quite that level. a system, even though we know we have a lot of hardworking people in our city department who want to address these problems, this isn't an issue about city employees not stepping up, it's really more about the structure of how we do code enforcement and just making sure that our departments are coordinating, that we have accountability, that there is transparency and that we are actually meaning fully addressing some of these blaetd and dangerous properties that have an impact on our neighborhoods. i also want to note and it's always a balance because there are times when buildings become dilapidated or hoarding occurs on a construction project and it sits there for 5 years.

there are times when people don't have the economic resources to do what they need to do. someone starts a construction project and runs out of money. someone does not have the ability to take care of their property. and obviously hoarding can be caused by serious mental illness at times in extreme situations and it's very very important that we as a city look out for folks who are really experiencing these kinds of problems in terms of our social safety net being able to go in and help people and make sure that people have access to the resources they need but at the same time when you have properties that become dangerous, that become magnets for that activity and that are causing blight on a neighborhood for years and years, it's really important that we move forward and address the situation in one way or another. so, today