tv [untitled] October 10, 2012 12:00am-12:30am PDT
billion dollars. it employs 100,000 people in our city, and because of that sleeping giant, i am going to be creating quarterly meetings with the medical council to make sure that i support their research, their scientific discoveries and help grow this industry. because, by god, in our lifetime, this medical industry, this research, their association with ucsf, are going to create the solutions for the world in cancer, in arthritis, in autism, in all the diseases that have plagued us for many, many years. we continue it look forward to ways to showcase all of the amazing and creative and innovative things going on because we are in san francisco the innovation capital of the world. we have even declared the month of october not just orange playoff month, larry, also innovation month in our city.
and so october we've opened up many, some 75 technology companies from central market to soma, are opening up their offices and many people walk in, letting people exchange ideas and see how these companies are run. we're very proud of that and we're going to continue embracing innovation for our future. ladies and gentlemen, chamber of commerce and center for economic development, this is the story of san francisco. we are going forward. we're not talking about the negative things in the past. we are not talking about the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, we're going to be the city for the 100 percent. everybody has a chance to succeed in this city. we are city of innovators, entrepreneurs, risk-takers, and we say how can we work together to make our city better? that's what makes san francisco not only the innovation capital of the world, but we have now earned the title, america's best city. thank you very much.
meet new friends, and discover new adventures. there are amazing possibilities when you open your mind to reading. [roar] you can log onto he library of congress website and let the journey begin. before i take role i would like to remind everyone to silence or turn off your cell phones. commissioners, items for continuance -- my goodness. >> roll call. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> here. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> present. >> commissioner heals. here. >> fong. here. commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioners, i apologize. i'm just getting ahead of myself. the first category on calendar items proposed for
continuance, item on this week's calendar for continuance is item one, case number 2011.1407d for 2935-37 pierce street. a mandatory discretionary review and building permit application has been withdrawn. this matter is no longer before you for your consideration. commissioners, further on your calendar, item 11, 2011.1050dd for 2807 clay street. the project representative has informed me -- there is a letter in the files that they have reached a settlement. but the dr requester has not withdrawn the dr in writing. we need -- they are asking for one week continuance so they can get that letter. so the request is for continuance through october 3rd, i believe -- 4th.
okay. commissioners, with that i'm not aware of any other item on your calendar proposed for continuance. >> any public comment on the two items, 1 and 11 on today's calendar? >> just a moment. let me turn the mic on. >> members of the commission, president fong, the dr requesters have not withdrawn. the request for discretionary review as the project sponsor is not in san francisco and was not available to sign the settlement documents, but we will do that on monday. this will be off your calendar as soon as possible. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? commissioner borden? >> i will move to continue this item, but i just want to ask mr. butler are we absolutely certain you only need one week? we have continued this i think three times. would two weeks -- if it is going off the calendar, is there any reason not to continue it two weeks?
i just want to make sure we don't have to continue it again next week i guess is my concern. >> we had requested an indefinite continuance so we wouldn't pleaing you with this again. our team has signed a settlement agreement and the documents. we have settled, but the sponsor needs his signature on here as well. we are unable to obtain it. no one in san francisco has power of attorney for him. so if he, in fact, comes back from hawaii and shows up monday, we will be done with this, thank you. >> you are saying there is a lack of certainty around his showing up monday? >> no. he told us by phone he would be in town monday and we could conclude it at that time. >> okay. because i understand the way you guys are and -- i mean obviously he doesn't want indefinite continuance because of all the renotice issue. i just don't want to have i think every week continuing this item. i just want to concur with commissioners, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> whether we should do a
two-week continuance. i'm thinking that might make more sense. then we revisit in two weeks whether or not we want to do something further out. i will take other commissioner's thoughts. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it is not consequential enough not to say it is continued by a week. hope it will resolve itself. all you do is take the same paragraph, tick it back into the program and spend two minutes talking. two minutes is all i want. i'm fine. * >> commissioner sugaya. >> if we continue to two weeks it will go on the agenda. >> it will. >> let's continue it for two. >> commissioner antonini. >> i don't see a problem if it. if it is not done by next week we can always continue it from the next week. [ laughter] >> i'm hearing it's resolved. needs a signature and that seems like it is pretty certain. if it is on our agenda, of course we will be told the dr's withdrawn.
therefore it will not be an item, even though it is on the agenda. it won't be heard next week. it will be finished. i will make a motion to continue items number -- >> item 11. >> item 11 is the only one, to october 4th. >> second. >> the motion on the floor is continue item 11 to october 4th on that motion. commissioner yaens. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> yes f >> commissioner ha*els. >> aye. moore aye wu aye commissioner fong. >> aye. >> thank you. * it's been continued to october 4th. commissioners, you are now on your consent calendar. items 2 and 3 make up the consent calendar this week. those are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call.
there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, a members of the public or staff so requests. in that event it would be removed from consent and considered a separate issue for future hearing. 2 is 2012.0453c for 1414 van necc, request for conditional use to allow existing ground floor retail space to institutional use to allow for proposed relocation of miami ad school's san francisco campus from its current location at 415 jackson street to 1414 van ness avenue. the project site is located within residential commercial high density district. the project site is located within the van ness special use district and van ness automotive use district.
3 is 2012-0610c for 499 castro, also known as 4092-4096 18th. request for conditional use to allow change of use as ground floor space from a limited restaurant to a restaurant within the castro street neighborhood commercial zoning district. commissioners, following public comment, which would automatically remove these items from your calendar, these matters are before you for your consideration. >> is there any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioners. commissioner sugaya. >> if i just want to make a comment on an item, do i have to pull it off consent? >> uh-huh. >> what if i just make the comment right now? >> off-consent. we need to open it up for the public to respond to your comment. >> item 2.
>> moving item 2 off consent. commissioner, before you and i will assume, mr. president, we will take that up as the first item on the regular calendar. >> correct. >> item 3 is still on consent for your consideration. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve item 3. >> commissioners, before you on the floor is a motion to approve item 3, as proposed on -- >> actually -- i'm sorry. 2 or 3? >> 2. >> so 3. >> on that motion for item 3, 499 castro street, also known as 4092 to 4096 18th. yaens. aye. >> board. aye. heals. aye. >> moore. aye. >> sugaya. aye. wu. aye. >> fong. aye. >> thank you. that's been approved as proposed. * >> are there any questions in matters? >> commissioner antonini.
>> couple items in the news. the first was in today's "c francisco for the top city, i guess doing business, which comes as a surprise to many commenters and somewhat as a surprise to me. we will certainly take it. it might be based upon part of what was written in another article but carl nulte sunday when he talks about the sales force and good things we are seeing. however it was entitled, ignoring a beautiful and ugly city is crazy. i agree with carl. i believe he's made good statements. his comments, not mine, he talked about some of the people on the street. he felt they weren't just foreclosed homeowners but people who have long-term
serious problems. yet everybody ignores this, has been for decades. i think he makes good points and ends his article by saying we pretend this doesn't exist. san francisco needs a psychiatrist, which is a well-written article. part of this, there is a positive note, however. there is legislation introduced and i believe passed on first reading to ban our vehicles over night. many are housing unit wes don't deal with. we deal with mergers, decks, a bunch of things that are important. we deal nothing with a lot of the housing that is not housing that comes under the auspiceses of houses within houses. i think it is time this is dealt with. i applaud supervisors carmen chu and malia cohen who authorized this legislation. it is about time.
i applaud bevin dufty who testified he felt there was room at shell thers. if not we should provide for shelters. * civilized societies need rules. if we didn't everybody would be crashing into each other. we don't seem to have rules about habitation in a lot of san francisco. i think we need more of that in the future. i'm happy to see that. i think that it is a step in the right direction that somebody is actually stepping up to the plate and addressing one of these concerns. hopefully we will see more of that. >> commissioner borden. >> a few things. first is i want to mention again that urban solutions two blocks of art, which is -- they will have all the businesses along the corridor of sixth between market and howard. we will have art installations inside, ranging from laundry mats and small stores. then there is a little program and a great studio right there. so it is 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
friday of this week. if you can make it by tomorrow, that would be great to do. i also wanted to recognize the planning department, which i know got an award for their property information map. i think that is incredible. i know i personally use that a lot as well. that makes me sound more smart when people ask my questions, because i know it is there. the final question i have is regarding the blight ordinance and properties who have entitlements, where there might be trash. is that a dpw issue, is that a planning commission approval? i know that sometimes when properties are not -- they have been entitled but there is no building permits pulled yet. there are issues with trash and debris and a blight ordinance. i don't know how the two work together if at all. i was cuisiner to know.
>> i believe that is a dpw issue. *. when we are in the field we try to contact dpw. we don't have the power but rely on dpi and building issue we rely on dbi. >> thanks. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. there was something in the pipe wer respect to the puc leasing * spaces in the garage. could we get a little more information. i don't know if that is for employee spaces or somehow connected with you are doing business with the puc you can park in one of their spaces. i don't know. it seems to go against the transit first policy. >> i will find out for you. >> it hinted that reck park was losing money because of the parking situation in various -- i guess because it is under civic center
park. but that also is kind of an ironic thing because we are trying to be transit-first, which means rec park shouldn't be making money off parking, or something like that. >> commissioner moore. >> there was an interesting article the other day about ucsf growing in a manner that they might bump up against the cap in their mission bay area, but also as it relates to the previous master plan protections. there are two aspects of this article, which i meant to fit in. one the master plan is exemplary to what the city, planning department. we need to understand what institution tries to do, project what it will do, how it operators, how it groups buildings ordeals
with transportation. something which we have not been appraised to * for quite sometime. the second aspect of this particular article is interesting to me because will it require potentially revisiting mission bay. i would be very curious to see the director and department keep us appraised or updated on how that might occur, so it is a lesson for all of us in terms of other institutions. but i think this particular case is a very positive one by which the department early on knows what to be prepared for. so i think we could use that to start developing language and some type idea of what a master plan needs to be. >> commissioners, if i can just have a moment. hopefully i won't break down with this. i announced at the beginning of the year that i would retire. but i promised i would stay
until we found a replacement for me. unfortunately that has taken a long time. much longer than i anticipated. with some family issues that have come up recently, i have set my date. my last day in the office will be october 31st. and i just want to thank you all and wish you the best. i'm here if you need me but i do have to leave. >> thank you. we completely understand that situation and wish you all the best. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> if i may ask the subcommittee of three commissioners, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden and myself have been assisting commissioner avery to find a replacement.
that process is not as complete as we would like. in your absence and even as you indicated you would return in november that you would be available as a consultant to us to help us carry this through in a manner that we all had created the mission to do so. >> commissioners, if it is the commission's desire for me to come -- i will be gone for the month of november to take care of my family's issues. if it is the desire of the commission, i am more than willing to come back in a consultant capacity to help with the secretary's search. not the functions of the commission secretary so much but with that search. that's about with my responsibilities to my family, that is about the most i can do. >> i assume the subcommittee, which is comprised of both planning, commission and historic preservation can discuss it
in the october meetings so we have a clear idea of how we navigate ourselves through this very difficult task. >> commissioner antonini. >> i would certainly be supportive of that and wish you well, linda. we would very much like to be able to ask your advise about issues as we move forward. unfortunately you are one of the only one who has answers on some of these issues. that would be very gracious if you are available as a consultant in the future. >> well, congratulations. i'm going to kind of ask the subcommittee when they next get together sort of accelerate things. i think linda has offered maybe her services, but i don't think that the commission should count on that necessarily. so i'm hopeful the subcommittee can get its work done in a timely manner. >> with that, commissioners
-- and excuse me. we should move on to the director's report. director's announcement and review of the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to apprise you of -- i think anne marie probably has this in her presentation that the action the board of supervisors took this week on legislation related to the successor agency of redevelopment. as you know, the state legislature passed trailing legislation in last year's budget that would, again, change the rules. while the first round allowed for redevelopment and successor agencies to be part and parcel of city government or county government, depending on the jurisdiction, this round of legislation literally requires them to be separate from city and county. as of the effective date of this legislation, the successor agency is
technically a separate entity from the city. in addition, the legislation that the mayor put forward that the board passed would create a separate board so there would be two entities. the oversight board i sit on would continue to exist but only be responsible for the fiduciary you responsibilities, the financial obligations if you recall what is called the recognized obligation payment schedule that we are required to submit to the state every six months. the second board would be composed of citizens appointed by the mayor, endorsed by the board, which would review entitlements, review projects and somewhat of the same capacity the former redevelopment commission board did. again, this is the result of -- to be honest, changing their mind on these things. we are constantly shifting ground with respect to this
work. i have to admit it is frustrating that sacramento keeps changing the rules on us, but that is essentially what happened. again the oversight board would have a narrower range of responsibility than it did previously. this new commission would have more of the responsibilities overseeing the activities of the successor agency since that agency is no longer technically part of city government. we have a memo coming to you i think -- and you will get that today that, gets the details of that legislation in much more detail. i just wanted to give you an overview in the meantime. thank you, that concludes my presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> sorry, marie. we have a question for the directors. >> this gets into technicalities a little bit at this point. but would there be shared jurisdiction over previous redevelopment agencies between this body and the
planning commission or the board of supervisors? because you say it is a non-city agency. >> the actual powers of the commission and the board wouldn't change with respect to changing redevelopment plans or changing zoning. redevelopment plans were to change, you would have to weigh in, just like you do today, like you used to do. same with the board. none of that changes. the powers of the new commission would be essentially similar to those of the old redevelopment commission. >> but it would be a commission but it wouldn't be a city commission. >> it is a somewhat separate entity, in some ways like the redevelopment commission used to be. >> it is a city or state agency i guess within the city i think technically. maybe that is -- >> essentially, that is right. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> does this pose for this particular city was probably one of the most physically active in the state of california. physical building, any problems as you see it?
i find it unusual you would not be asked to be on the physical end but rather the financial end. that is a tough call. >> commissioners, director ram, we are in a discussion of this. of course it is not on your calendar. if it is your desire to discuss this, and this is a subject i would recommend you discuss, maybe we should calendar this for next week, for discussion next week. >> we have a memo coming. the question is whether you want to actually calendar it. >> when does the memo come out? >> you will get it today. >> is there interest for that? >> yes, there is. >> let's calendar an item for this particular topic. >> okay. thank you. >> ms. rogers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anne rogers, planning department staff here for your weekly update on the board of supervisors planning activities. starting with monday land use committe, they heard
the update to the community safety element. this is a piece of our city's general plan. the commission recommended approval june 14th. while there had not been any opposition of the update up until monday, there were two speakers in opposition at the board hearing citing sea level rise. after public comment the board committee did recommend approval of this ordinance to the full board. they also heard an ordinance sponsored by mayor. board president chu and supervisors kim and wiener. this would change the threshold for the inclusional affordable housing programs, moving from five or more units back to ten or more . this is the companion ordinance to the housing trust fund and would only become effective if the voters approved the housing trust fund at this november's election. at committee this week both affordable housing advocates and housing builders spoke in support of the ordinance.
at the hearing the board amended to make conforming amendments to another section. also to add in an evaluation component. where the city would look at the effect of this exemption on achieving our city's housing policies. this evaluation would be done three years after the effective date of the ordinance. then in conjunction with the five-year updates that are required by the mayor's office of housing. also, as you know, that housing board ordinance is moving through the board committees, so if that becomes effective it would be a component with that reporting mechanism as well. also the ordinance was amended to move effective date to january 15th from january 1st to allow review of the specific exemption once the housing trust fund becomes effective. with those amendments the ordinance is recommended for approval to the board. then at tuesday's hearing supervisor ferrell's
ordinance to reinstate liquor controls on union street was heard. you will remember the commission recommended approval of this ordinance with minor modification on september 9th. this week the full board approved the ordinance, as it has been amended. supervisor's wiener tax amendment for business properties, a business and tax and police code amendment and little bit of planning code amendment was heard. this would simplify the requirements for parking five or fewer spaces in a residential building. you recommended approval with minor modifications. your modifications were incorporated into the revised ordinance . this week the unanimously voted to approve the ordinance. also the car wash legislation, which would allow existing gas stations along 19th avenue to add car washes. this was recommended for approval with modifications by you. in this case the modifications were not incorporated into the ordinanc