tv [untitled] July 25, 2011 2:00pm-2:30pm PDT
that, transferring it as well. from dwp to rec park. this is a general cleanup that allows for further improvements. this is the overlay of the park improvements. you can see the area in red that is subject to the vacation. one way to do this is to deal with the sioux were laterals. these serve five adjacent residential parcels through the package today and we will reserve rights for those laterals that lie within the right of way today. that is properly noted in the enabling legislation. the matter was unanimously approved via the resolution on
may 19th, 2011. the planning department issued their referral letter, dated march 11th, and these are the biggest of certification, dated april 27th, saying the project is categorically exempt from environmental review, putting the project in conformity with the general plan with the categorical exemption. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> i just want to point out that the park has these incredible wood sculptures. my daughter's best friend lives around the corner and she is often there. it is a hidden gem within the excelsior district. thank you for the great presentation. any questions? we will now open up for public comment. would anyone from the public like to speak? public comment disclosed. can we move the amendments on
item no. 4 without objection? without objection, -- can we move this item -- and looking at my notes here -- with a positive recommendation as recommended? without objection. for item number five, we are being urged to move this without recommendation for consideration on to denver 6, 2011. without objection? thank you. -- november 6th, 2011. could you please call item no. 6? >> item #6, amending the transportation code to establish a violation for an authorized vehicles to park and undesignated harsher parking systems. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
thank you for hearing this item. we are here to ask for approval of a change to the transportation division 12 and out -- to allow us to initiate a car sharing program going forward. just to give you some background -- in 2006, the state allowed cities to use the designated on streetcar sharing station -- for cars sharing vehicles. we have been working with the administrator's office to implement this. this is supported by the mayor's office. we have been working under the agreement with the car share pilot. we selected six spots to do this and five of them are going forward. we have heard comments from the spots and a request this bought not be included in the pilot because they have concerns about
the area. right here on the map, these are the five spots in the city that will be testing the pilot. alex is going to put up the specifics. this is the spot at polls and greenwich. it's difficult to see. they are available in the documents we sent you. the second spot is on the corner of taylor and pacific. the third one is on the corner of harriet and howard. the fourth is on clay and fillmore. and the fifth is on valencia and 17th. these spaces were testing to issues -- a couple of them in the commercial districts of a couple and residential areas. we want to see the demand for the spaces in these to differ
areas that we will also look at the logistics about street sweeping. how will work and how will the issue of private cars parking in these areas associated with that -- a violation in front of view is creating a violation to allow us to address vehicles parked in the spot as well as the potential vehicles parked in the spot which would not allow the car share vehicles to access these spots. we're also looking at sign edge. what would we need to make it visit -- visible for the public as they walk by the spaces? we'll be looking at criteria to establish what a car share company is as well as what are the optimal criteria for a space that will allow us to expand the
pilot citywide. we would like your support to move this into the pilot phase. >>supervisor mar: so if this cos forward as a fall contract -- >> we would open up to all car shares. that met the criteria we are developing. after the board takes action, you have to take action to establish the violation amount and create other legislative changes required to implement this. we're hoping for a start in august that will hopefully move forward tomorrow for full consideration. we're happy to answer any questions, the whole group of people are here to answer any questions you might have. >> let me just ask from the
president's office -- thank you for the presentation. >> car sharing is crucial to san francisco and this is a modest pilot program to try on shrieked car sharing and we appreciate -- to try on the streetcar sharing. that's all i have to say unless there are questions and we appreciate the presentation as well. supervisor cohen: i'm just curious -- i understand, we spoke about this pilot program and i'm very excited about it. i would like to know which sites will be place in the southeast part of san francisco. >> as we define the ideal spots, we will be reaching out to define spots. we hope to at the end of six months to have the city wide pilot program in all the
district supervisor locations. but we want to make sure the spots are visible to people. we don't want them to be in a spot where there will be -- we want to put the spots where there will be visible demand. that will be during the six month pilot. supervisor cohen: what are the tangible next steps? once this hearing is complete, what -- what do you need? >> hopefully the full board will take action tomorrow. the m.t.a. board is taking action on august 2nd to do the code changes. in the middle of august, will go forward with these five spots. in the next six months, we will be working to develop the full program and we will be working with your office is to establish additional spots. >> where are these five spots located? >> we just had a map up.
russian hill, lower pacific heights, and the mission neighborhoods as a start. right there. those are the first five spots. it is critical to understand what happens with street sweeping, what would happen in commercial districts and do the work better than residential districts? this pilot will help educate us in terms of the program so when we launch in your neighborhood, we will have lessons learned from the pilot. supervisor cohen: the purpose of the pilot program is to test your theory. for what reason are there not any spots in the southeast part of san francisco in order to test your theory? >> i could have the city administrator's office speak to that but these spots were selected with city car share and
they could speak to the criteria. supervisor cohen: i look forward to that. >> good afternoon. i'm with the city administrator's office and to address your question, we were working with a car share company to identify locations suitable for this pilot. this location was chosen in collaboration with the car share company. supervisor cohen: how well do they know san francisco? >> we are working with them as part of the vehicles for the city contract for the city vehicle -- a city employee use and the location, we're trying to identify locations where there are gaps in their coverage in those areas that were identified with the collaboration of that office.
supervisor cohen: there is a series of criteria you used to evaluate which neighborhoods would get one of the five initial car spots, right? and curious to know because i don't think you contacted my office and i don't understand the criteria that she used, but once again it appears we're left out the map. -- left off the map. i do is see anything south of the mission district. how -- i don't see anything south of the mission district. how do you expect to meet adequate demand if you don't even set up with an adequate benchmark? >> the idea is to find gaps in the current support system whereby vehicles are not currently available in those
neighborhoods. working with the car share companies and other partners to try to find locations where we can put these locations and those locations ratified as well as in puts from the san francisco and ca. -- san francisco and t a -- san francisco mta. supervisor cohen: i just want to put on the record that i am frustrated. once again, southeaster neighborhoods are left off the table, no discussion, no consideration and i will not be voting for this. supervisor mar: i just pulled up the city car share map and it does seem that the southeast sector is willfully -- woefully
misrepresented and park side has almost nothing. i also saying around park merced -- it is the southwest part of the city and my hope as you work with the supervisors to look at citywide -- at least in the richmond district, you have six or seven sites, but not in that outer richmond. my hope is by looking a pilot projects like this you can help figure out how to expand and raise the awareness in other areas of the city and not just central areas you currently are located late. i appreciate supervisor cohen's comments. my understanding is with the pilot program, four of them are in district 3 areas where there is clear demand and the others are chosen in areas where there is clear demand for city car share, but that is my understanding. pfft supervisor cohen: when we
are talking about clear demand -- in order for anything to be clear, it has to be bought about, there has to be analysis and data collection. when you look at the map, the car sure companies don't even exist. there is a pronounced need for those of you came to the hearing, there is a level of dysfunction with services on the southernmost eastern part of our neighborhoods. >> we very much appreciate the point you're making and would be supportive of the mta and administrators office identifying locations and perhaps work our share is not currently available. we would urge the board to least forward this item to the full board because it lays the groundwork for those spots to exist in other places and it's about creating a framework for this pilot to take place. we would appreciate that
consideration while completely understanding the concerns that have been raised. supervisor cohen: i appreciate that and want to impress upon my colleagues that i have become further resolved in my position that i don't want their recommendation made to the full board. i think it is our duty as a committee to sit out and work out the kinks. i understand this is a pilot program and i understand the nature of a pilot program is to figure out whether or not this program would actually work. it order to assess that, we need to make sure we are expanding and assessing every part of san francisco. where all gaps exist. supervisor mar: can i just ask if this could be delayed until there is more of a dialogue with supervisor: office -- supervisor cohen's office?
could we delay this until we could talk about this? >> what we are asking the board to do is to set the actual spots selected by the mta board. we could have you move forward and the m.t.a. would take action august 2nd and can expand a pilot areas beyond what was rick -- what was originally given to us. we're fully comfortable testing in other parts of the city, but we were working under the agreement agreed to buy it city car share. >> we need to open up for public comment, but i'm open up -- open to moving it forward with our recommendation to allow time for communication and think about other potential pilot sites as well. thank you very much. if there is no other comments, let's open up for public
comment. is there anyone from the public would like to speak? >> good afternoon. i'm going to speak on another item, but underserved areas are going to remain underserved unless all the stakeholders are brought to the table. i think this thing should stay in the committee myself because certain neighborhoods have been clearly neglected. get right, get people to come to the table, and then present it in the form of a pilot program. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else from the public would like to speak? public, disclosed. supervisor wiener: i think it's an important point that there are two things here -- this is just creating the violation so mta can enforce the spots where they are.
the mta has it within its discretion to pick the spot that i think the supervisor cohen is right and one of them should be in the southeast part of the city. if we put this forward and goes to the committee report tomorrow, the second reading would be after the next meeting of the mta board. i suspect that by 2:00 tomorrow, we'll have some sort of response from the mta in terms of a committed to at a spot in the southeast and we will know if the board has done that. my suggestion would be that we put this forward and i think we should do it with a recommendation because this is a really important policy. but if the mta for what ever reason, thumbs its nose at it -- at us, which i don't think it will, we could continue the item tomorrow or continue it at the second reading. that is my suggestions and i
think there are two prongs to this. this is just the basic, saying we want mta to have this but i agree that mta will have to quickly evaluate the inclusion of the southeast. >> we're fully committed. we would actually like to see a bigger pilot than the one before you. we're happy to address richmond, the sunset and outlying areas because we would like to test the demand in those areas as well. that was a program we were initially starting to do, but because of this agreement, we focused on this area. supervisor wiener: how confident are you that we could expand a pilot to include a part in the southeast neighborhoods? >> very competent -- very confident. supervisor mar: is that acceptable and of commitment? it has been on the record, this commitment to include a
southeast pilot site as well. that is what i have heard. my hope is that it can move forward positively, but i'm curious where you are at right now. colleagues, we have closed public comment. if there is no other comment, can we have a motion? supervisor wiener: i would move we forwarded to the board as a committee report tomorrow with a positive recommendation, of course with the understanding that of the mta will expand the scope of the pilot to include the southeastern locations. supervisor mar: this is to the full board. without objection? thank you. thank you, everyone. could you please call item no. 6. >> item #7? >> item #7. >> amending the planning code permitting video stores in the
venture and outer clement never a commercial destroys and removing the prohibition on large fast-food restaurants and formulating pet stores and in the subdistrict. supervisor mar: we heard this last week in there were a lot of amendments that were on this. let me just say this is an important ordnance that means a lot to the richmond district. there are a number of small business leaders here who will be speaking to this issue. the gist of it is this would help revitalize the club and st. corridors, merchant corridors, and support strongly small businesses not just pet supply stores but small businesses in our unique cadavers' merchant corridors and the richmond district. it is strongly supported by a unanimous vote of the small business commission and would
help businesses serving our neighborhood and assessed property owners and filling vacant france along the club meant areas as well. a number of people have worked very hard on this and i want to thank them for their work. from the planning department, in addition to community pokes and small-business leaders, some of them are here today and many others -- all want to acknowledge this is the project -- a product of many small businesses, especially those locally owned and neighborhoods serving and encouraging economic activity in the comment corridor. it also updates and modernizes the zoning controls established many decades ago in the richmond district and brings them more up
to modern conditions. if you look at a map of the clement street inner and outer areas or the greater corridor, a lot of the current vacant storefronts would be impacted. this would help felt -- helped fill many by listing the overly restrictive regulations that were put in place years ago. it would also help serve commercial quarters by lessening environmental impacts and strengthen neighborhoods vitality, protect the deke character of our neighborhood and the first fabric of our small businesses. many people have testified from the small business commission to the planning commission which offered its support for the legislation as well, that we don't want suburban strip malls or a suburban strip mall culture within the richmond district. we want vibrant neighborhood- serving businesses. i also want to say that i shot that many of our smaller businesses, including the and be and i think the owners here today and i think the -- over
the spread of formula retail big box stores like the current pet food express on california and others, that would harm many of the small businesses according to testimony at the other commissions as well. the modifications i introduced last time will help us move this forward with the strong suggestions of the planning commission staff and i want to say that one other issue that has come up is why don't we allow a conditional use process to proceed? i will just i have respect for the decisionmaking process of the planning commission but many small businesses that brought these suggestions to us -- we have crafted this legislation carefully out of the urgency of our small business sector and we need to protect our neighborhood now, and for the future as well.
other comments made at the planning commission were important -- why didn't we go further and make it work comprehensive as an overall effort to look at other industries like the hardware stores or office supply stores and i will just say we did our best to make this a limited measure that could go further, but we look forward to working with the planning commissioners and others to look more carefully at how we protect the small business climate in all our neighborhoods. with that, i would like to introduce and mary rodgers from planning to brief us on this -- and mary e. rogers from planning to brief us on this and -- >> i did go over the recommendations in full last week and i'm happy to review them again this week. to summarize, they supported
nearly all of the recommended modifications and the content of the ordinance, but for the prohibition on formula retail, that was the only area where they read -- or the difference -- where they differed. this supports the restaurant controls and is more easy on restaurants. it should take less process to get a restaurant when this passes. as well as the other changes which were more minor, but a few of the questions, happy to review the recommendations in full. supervisor mar: i also want to acknowledge that the small business commission is here as well. did you want to address the committee? >> good afternoon. i does want to reaffirm the commission's position on this
and that the commission also tends to defer to district supervisors direction on specific zoning controls such as this. we do think that there are many other opportunities we would like to explore with the planning department in how we look at our large retail spaces. supervisor mar: thank you very much. if there are no other comments from colleagues, let's open this for public comment. i do not have -- if people could just lineup -- we are limiting this to 2 minutes per person. please come forward if you'd like to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm here representing the san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization which got its start in 2004 fighting for miller retail.
-- a formula retail. both organizations want to stand in strong of the retail protections in your legislation because this is crucial. i was born and raised in california but i also spent a lot of time in the midwest, where there are no such restrictions. living in a midwest town without those restrictions is like being inside the mall in the movie "dawn of the dead." it's not a fun way to live that we don't want that to happen to the richmond. let's remind ourselves that whenever you get a big chain coming to any city, 40% of the money that chain brings italy leaves the city. that is not good for anybody in the city. we need to minimize that. s -- anytime that change -- any money it chain brings in leaves the city. we're glad that we won
conditional use hearings and that helps, but when you have a big box like pet food express or pat the dough that can try one location -- pasco that can try it one location and at baseball margin and volunteer activist pour their blood, sweat and tears, the big box can just go to california and had us with that and getting that blood sweat and tears to happen again is very difficult. whenever we have an opportunity like this to set aside an entire area and say this is off limits so we don't have to fight side by side every time, we can't do it. we cannot fight against big boxes on that train on an even footing. [tone] supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for your time.
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on