Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 4, 2012 2:30am-3:00am PST

2:30 am
the planning department need to be aware of that type of conversion. and i think the staff did a great job of pointing out there are only three limited circumstances. one is with the exemption from inclusionary housing requirements is taken advantage of. the other is the f.a.r. bonus, but that's only available in two of the c3 voting districts. -- zoning districts. the other is the exemption from the dwelling unit mixed requirement. that is a limited number of zoning districts as well. and i do appreciate that supervisor kim's office is clarifying the intent of the legislation in that regard, but quite frankly that's not the way it's currently drafted. a few other things i want to be clear as to what the legislation currently requires. it requires every entity that owns, operates or controls student housing to file an annual report with very extensive and proprietary information about all of its student housing, including existing student housing and
2:31 am
on-campus student housing regardless of whether any new student housing is proposed. obviously that's overly broad and quite frankly seems unnecessary. as you are aware and as tim and dan pointed out, there are already existing reporting requirements. the imp requirements and then the very extensive requirements for reporting if a student housing project takes advantage of the inclusionary housing exemption. i believe dan handed those out to you. so, in light of that existing requirement for the inclusionary housing exemption, we would respectfully request that if this legislation move forward, that it be limited in scope, but it be limited to new student housing projects for which a dwelling unit mix exception is granted and possibly f.a.r. bonus, again, that would be limited circumstances. and that for those specific projects, the scope of the
2:32 am
reporting be severely limited in scope. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i have a question, ms. hayward, first, for the modifications. if i'm reading this right, the legislation calls for an initial filing by all post secondary institutions that provide student housing with an inventory of all their existing housing on and off campus. is that correct? >> [speaker not understood], yes. the legislation requires an annual report to be filed by all institutions, yes, or people who control student housing. >> right. but then i thought i heard with your modification would be the annual report would not be as
2:33 am
extensive as it was. they'd only have to file a paper saying that there were no changes. is that what you're proposing? >> just to clarify, the department's recommendation is slightly different from what [speaker not understood] just explained. the department's recommendation is that there be an initial report provided by all institutionses and operatorses of student housing. subsequent to that initial report, our recommendation is that a report -- a report only be filed when there is a change or when the incentive is used. i think that -- and i hope [speaker not understood] will correct me i'm wrong. i think her suggestion is that there be no requirement for an initial report either, only new projects. >> i understood what she said. and i guess i heard that the legislation as drafted would
2:34 am
also call for an annual -- however, two years -- an affirmation that there had been no changes. >> correct. that would just be a letter to the department. >> okay, thank you. i have some thoughts on this. i think the intent is a good one. i think it's good to kind of get a baseline and know what you've got, you know, who has what housing. but i think we need a little more outreach in two ways. number one, to coordinate with existing laws -- because i've heard a couple of speakers say that there may be existing laws that, as part of the student housing that was recently approved, that require reporting and monitoring of the conversion to student housing that takes advantage of the three exemptions that you spoke of already. so, that's the first thing. and then i also think the outreach to different institutions wouldn't be a bad thing.
2:35 am
we've heard mentioned usf, u.c. hastings, sf art institute. i haven't heard california college of arts and sciences, but i'm sure there are many, many more that would probably have some things they could bring to the table and draft something that worked in a cooperative manner. so, i'm probably in favor of a continuance. it might not have to be a long one. maybe mattious might be able to give us an idea how long you think it might take if we had a continuance to get together with these groups. if you wanted to give me some input on that, i'd be happy to have some guidance as to how long a period of time you feel you'd be able to work out the various outreach that we're talking about. * >> being unaware of your schedule, and i know that the board of supervisors will go into recess in two weeks. but i believe that to be on the safe side, something around mid
2:36 am
january would probably be the safest so that there will be time both before and after the holidays to conduct those conversations. [speaker not understood]. >> great, thank you. okay, those were my main feelings. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, i do have a question for staff. so, i do think that -- i know we're trying to monitor new housing, but this also sounds like you want to create an inventory of student housing as an overall city-wide baseline. is that something you're trying to accomplish as well? i just want to understand why because you had a lot of -- >> so, the purpose [speaker not understood] what happens when you convert student housing. that was kind of the main concern of the legislation. but we are interested in having a [speaker not understood] inventory. >> okay. i think -- i think then when you talk about it that way, you know, and i think that's where you can get some input maybe from the university then.
2:37 am
i don't think they would generally have a problem with providing that information. i think obviously there might be, i don't know, statistic information about locations of housing sites that they my not want to disclose for safety or other reasons. * may not want to disclose but i think it's a reasonable desire to have that. i think it would be useful to have that as a city. i think that working with the schools about what that looks like, and then i think it became confusing because people thought the legislation was focusing on conversion of units and you're collecting inventory of other units. so, i think that that makes a lot of sense. and i really do support a lot of what staff has with -- because the issue we really do have is conversion. i mean, i know we're adding additional -- we're talking about additional reporting requirements and making sure everything is kind of cohesive. so, if it's in one planning code section obviously makes the most sense. so, any more time would help us accomplish that. i mean, i think that, you know, overall more information is never a bad thing as long as
2:38 am
it's actually useful information and it's not onerous to collect it, i think it makes a lot of sense. i think one of our challenges with the student housing situation is a particular institution that does president choose -- doesn't matter how many laws you pass -- that choose to follow them anyway. but that's a whole 'nother conversation topic. thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. i'm supportive of the idea of getting this baseline. i think when we were considering the student housing legislation there were only some best guesses at numbers that give us the full information we needed. i agree also obviously we should try to get it all on the same code. so, maybe planning department staff can work with supervisor kim's office on that. also i e-mailed ms. hayward on. this i think we should also try to align it with the housing inventory report that the department already puts out. so we don't have all these separate reports, that we have all the information of housing in one location. and i think that's -- oh, and
2:39 am
supportive of the modifications that the department has put out today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. yes, in response to some mention of the imps, that's really very calorickvy -- clonky way to get at student housing. doing it in the inventory is great. [speaker not understood]. i think extending it to mid january we're going to get the same arguments that we always get, that this legislation was pushed through during the holidays and we didn't have a time to meet and therefore we want to push it into february. so, i don't think that's going to work. and then lastly, i think that in at terms of collecting information, i don't know specifically whether the provision actually calls for pinpointing locations of student housing. * but i think some way of knowing where they are is extremely
2:40 am
important, especially given a particular institution here in the city that happens to have buildings all over downtown that are currently illegal. like to make a motion to recommend approval with modifications made by the staff and also to have the staff and the supervisors office look at where there may be conflicts or other similar provisions that were handed to us. for example, there's -- there is a -- there is an annual documentation. i don't know the definition of that exactly, but that's due on december 31st of each year. so, if that could be cleaned up between the staff and the supervisor's office, i'd be comfortable in moving ahead with this today. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i'd like to move to
2:41 am
continue for the reasons i stated earlier. i think that much could be gained by working cooperatively with the institutions. and also working with the city staff to eliminate any duplicitous parts of the legislation. and i'd be willing to go january 24th, which would be towards the latter part of january with somewhat often used argument things can't be done over the holidays. you'der have most of the month of january in addition to all of the month of december to do it. so, that would be my motion to continue. >> second it. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to comment that the institutional master plan and where they stand would not give us any real tools to compare apples and apples. and i think this legislation as it is in front of us passed today, it might add another provision to add criteria which
2:42 am
ultimately properly executed institutional master plans would have a chapter which becomes consistent for all institutional master plans. so, that indeed, we have a library of comparing the same set of data with each other. i think this is a great opportunity to start having an order reporting system. it does go hand in hand with other attempts on getting a better handle on housing, the housing dashboard, and on and on. i think these things layer ayev other consistently and not quite as strong and give all of us a much better ability to handle these complex and new issues. * >> commissioner hillis. >> i agree with the intent of the legislation, but i just think it would be good to talk to folks like the art institute and usf who sent us e-mails and said they haven't had a chance to review the legislation. so, i think continuing this to january makes sense just to dot
2:43 am
every i and cross every t to get their input. support the continuance. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i guess i can't figure out what is so complicated and so onerous about this. it's just a reporting mechanism. we're spending more time up here talking about it and having presentations than it would take an institution to produce the report in the first place. and, so, it just doesn't make any sense to me. unless i'm missing something, i don't know. maybe i am. but -- >> commissioner moore. >> particularly some of the institutions which are being suggested as the ones who consistently present with accurate data and detail, for them it would be very easy to just put them into a form which is provided by the department to just check the numbers and the data. i don't see that a really big deal. but for those who are not, i think it might take a little bit more work. >> so, my thought is that i think this does potentially add to some good data to create a
2:44 am
baseline going forward and comparing current day to maybe five years, ten years from now and be able to forecast where our student housing needs are or where they're deficient, what areas geographically. so, i understand that the goal is quite clear and in front of us. i think a little more time, giving additional thought, getting input from those institutions that are currently operating housing or maybe will be adding housing will help us get better data to move forward. but i understand your, you know, -- how you see it as black and white right now and the importance of t. but i think a little more time getting input will give us a better product. i think in the future if you want to use that data, the better product and the better product out. i think it's worth a come of weeks. commissioner borden. >> i just wanted to say just the fact that even in the motion we had a lot of lack of clarity about what we really wanted to ask for. i have been a lot with maya
2:45 am
aluminum nigh organization and i chair it here in the area. i know there is a lot of other reporting requirements institutions have to deal with at the state and federal level for accreditation, for financial aid and other services. so, while it may not seem like a big deal, it may not seem on its face to be a big deal. institutions i respect, not ones i don't respect. when institutions i respect ask me that this is something that they just want to spend a little more time on, i don't think what you're hearing from anyone is a lack of desire to provide the information, at least among the peaedv l that have made a statement again, but more a better understanding how they can accurately report the information that we want and make it just all aligned in the simplistic sort of way. that is the only reason i'm supportive of the continuance. >> commissioner antonini. >> the argument for me came from one of the a forenamed institutions who called me and said they hadn't heard anything about it. and he said that they don't
2:46 am
have a particular officer that does monitoring of all the elected bodies or appointed bodies in san francisco. he thought there was nothing wrong with the idea, but he really wanted to be able to have some input. and i think the outreach is a good thing. it probably isn't bad to get some -- bring them to the table. they may make a better piece of legislation than is originally drafted. >> commissioner moore. >> i could probably [speaker not understood] the one comment i took issue with, this is an extra attempt for convoluting and making requirement. i think it is actually a very clear signal for starting something anew with i student housing is. and i think it in the long run it will be greatly appreciated to create a consistent record from the very beginning because we now have many things that we're trying to retrofit data which are almost impossible to capture. with everything being electronic, you don't have to basically walk down to city hall and file your report. this is all filling out a form
2:47 am
and sending it off. with pdf and encryption, everything can be confidential because it only goes to one a address and be properly evaluated which those data confidential are not falling into any kind of unwanted hands. i see that as a very progressive forward looking thing, but i am prepared to consider it being extended. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to adopt the resolution with modifications. however, the motion to continue takes precedence and so we'll take that matter up first. on the motion to continue to january 24th, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i would just be surprised if this commission gets into the level of detail that everyone's been talking about that is going to result in talking to the institutions. that kind of thing really takes
2:48 am
place after the ordinance is passed and the forms are created and then the real discussion takes place with the institution as to what goes in and out and whether it's appropriate or not appropriate. no. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. commissioners, it will place you on item 14, case no. 2012.09 50 t and z, amendments to the planning code to establish the difficult viz dare owe neighborhood commercial district. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, department staff. the item before you is an ordinance proposed by supervisor olague to create a neighborhood commercial district along divisadero street from haight to o'farrell. stephanie tucker from supervisor olague's office is here to speak about the proposed ordinance. then after she speaks i'll continue with my presentation. thank you.
2:49 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephanie tucker, legislative aide to supervisor christina olague. we're here today to ask for your approval for amendments to divisadero street. this conversation at the beginning of last year. we had several concerns from the community about small businesses and growth as well as concerns around -- from the surrounding community. but essentially, the divisadero street is becoming a very popular commercial district, very similar to a lot of other commercial districts like the upper haight and upper fillmore. so, it made sense that now we would create a new commercial district that would help guide the growth and make sure that we get small businesses that are serving communities in that area and controls that the
2:50 am
community would like to see to make sure that that -- it grows in the way the community [speaker not understood]. so, today we are asking for your approval. if you have any questions, i'm here to answer them. thank you. >> so, the zoning code has two different commercial districts. nc1, n c-2, nc3. there is also named neighborhood commercial districts such as the castro and ncd, upper fillmore ncd and the polk street. rezoning properties along divisadero street from n c-2 to a newly created named commercial district called the divisadero street ncd. for the most part, the new divisadero street ncd maintains the n c-2 zoning controls, however, there are some notable changes. the ordinance removes the minimum parking controls and replaces them with maximum
2:51 am
parking controls. it allows the 5 foot height bonus for active ground floor uses and 40 x zoning or height districts. it allows bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters, other entertainment, philanthropyic administrative services and trade shops on the second floor of buildings with no prior residential use. the ordinance also removes the divisadero street alcohol restricted use district, but maintains the prohibition on liquor stores in the new ncd, the street would have a named ncd. this restricted use district is no longer necessary because you can just outright prohibit liquor stores. staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with the following modifications. one would be to include all n c-2 zoneded parcels located on blocks that front on divisadero street, not just lots that front on divisadero street. this would ensure that all neighborhood commercial zoned properties along divisadero are
2:52 am
in the immediate vicinity would be included in the new zoning district. to reinstate the good neighbor policies for general and specialty grocery stores which was inadvertently removed when the ordinance was drafted and modify the ordinance so that bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters, philanthropic and trade shops are permitted on the second floor so long as they are not displacing an existing residential unit. instead allowing them only in spaces where there was no prior residential unit. staff is also recommending that the definition for philanthropic administrative services be amended to remove conflicting and unnecessary provisions in the language and several other clerical changes that only are in here because they are -- the ordinance is changing that section of the code. that concludes my presentation and i'm also happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you.
2:53 am
is there any board committee on this item? -- is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner borden? >> i support the presentation. i think we ought to name more of our commercial corridor districts and really reign in the controls in a way that's -- that makes sense for that corridor and allow those corridorses to set the rules they like. that is one of the challenges with the nc1, 2 and 3 classifications. so, with that i move to approve with the modifications. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have some questions on the legislation. i guess the first one has to do with the changes from parking. now, we're talking about residential parking or commercial parking? * >> i believe it changes the --
2:54 am
all to maximum parking rather than minimum parking in the new ncd. >> yeah, but it depends which it is and what the maximums are. >> they're the standard found in section 151. so, all the other districts that have had this done to them have maximum parking controls. i'm sorry, i don't have that section of the code in front of me for the parking, though. >> seems to me it would be related more to the commercial establishments that front divisadero street as opposed to somebody's residential building that might be built new. but that's important to know. well, while you're looking at that, i'll raise my other question. in terms of second and third floor use, it specified philanthropic and administrative, but it didn't mention just general office. why wouldn't you be able to
2:55 am
just have, you know, an insurance agency upstairs or something like that? i don't understand why we're being so specific about what could be on the second floor. >> great question. the reason that there is no definition for just general office, and that is something that the department is looking into creating and hopefully bringing forward to the commission soon. the idea was that when neighborhood commercial districts were created in the '80s, they didn't want offices in neighborhood commercial districts because they weren't retail. so, an actual definition wasn't created. >> i think that's really important because we found second floor retail is often not very effective, sometimes even ground floor has problems. but, you know, second floor uses for office and other type uses, not at the expense of housing, is often a very appropriate use. and when it's quite successful. i would hope if we did pass this
2:56 am
, these earmarked uses, it could be modified at such time as the city might allow for more general uses in all of these named ncd districts. is that what you're telling me? >> yeah, i think the intention is to allow offices on the second floor. it just is a matter of getting that legislation, drafting it, introducing it and bringing it forward. >> what i'm hearing is if we were to pass this today and then this would be done in more of a blanket way, then it would apply to any of the named ncds if this legislation was passed through. we wouldn't have to revisit each one of them and pass, and see if they would be willing to accept that? >> commissioners, if i could, emory rodgers, planning department staff. the director asked us to look into the issue of office and neighborhood commercial districts. it could be a little bit controversial because it was
2:57 am
originally purposely excluded from neighborhood commercial districts, but we feel that the office district has been pretty constrained downtown and south of market. and we're not talking about large office uses. we'd be looking at smaller, more neighborhood appropriate office uses. but that work is just begun so we don't know enough about that proposal to say what it would ultimately do. so, the only thing before you is allowing it in this limited way in the divisadero entity. >> yeah, okay. i understand that. but i think this is an important question for the future because what we may hear later today on our calendar about a potential use on a ground floor of a neighborhood commercial district. we want active uses that are day and night and all these arguments that come up. but if you don't allow them on the second floor, where are they going to be? because they can't be on the ground floor, they can't be on the second floor.
2:58 am
you want people to frequent neighborhoods and take care of their business. if they have to go somewhere else, get in their car to take care of some of their business that involves a professional of some kind, you know, it's very restrictive. but that's not what's before us. we only have the ability to pass what this is right now. did you find out about the parking? >> off-street parking for residential, none is required. and it's permitted for .5 cars per unit and conditional use for .75 cars per unit. not permitted above that. >> i think that's pretty restrictive. if somebody wants to build infill parking somewhere in this area and -- our housing would be principally permitted, i would think, along this corridor? >> yes. >> so it could be that there's one. to make it reasonable, they're going to want a parking place for each of their potential units, i would think. and, you know, they would not be allowed to under this legislation. so, again, it goes much to
2:59 am
extreme. getting rid of the minimums that require one car per each unit, i would expect. >> actually, it does require one car per each unit but they can get a waiver from the zoning administrator under section 01 61. >> so, is it possible -- well, i don't know if i could do that anyway, but is it possible to modify the approval and strike that section out of there? >> the commission can make any recommendation they see fit. >> that would be my feeling, is i would move to approve this. but but eliminate the legislation that speaks -- we could eliminate the maximum, you know, but -- eliminate the minimum, but not put a maximum on it. * is that all right to do as a motion? >> we have a motion -- >> we have a motion, yeah. all right. how about an amendment? i would move to a