tv [untitled] November 5, 2013 3:30pm-4:01pm PST
idea of preparing the language. >> sure. department city attorney job gibner. section 3.3 is the prohibiting sleeping in the park provision. that a person encountered sleeping in the park during the hours that the park is closed maybe cited for violation of section 3.13 but not be cited for violation of section 3.21, for being in the park while sleeping. >> okay. i'm comfortable with that amendment and i will support it. >> okay. on the kim avalos gibner amendment, colleagues can we take that without objection. that should be the case. and any further discussion before a vote on the underlying ordinance as amended? supervisor wiener?
>> thank you, mr. president. this has been a robust discussion. and i do, what everyone's view on this and it's clear on all sides of this issue is very passionate and i think we are all very passionate about trying to get homeless people housed and we are passionate about keeping our parks clean and safe. i don't think it moves the conversation forward to talk about paving over our parks. i think there were a lot of motivations attributed to support this legislation which aren't just me, which our wonderful san francisco parks alliance, our labors union, the people who have to come in every morning and fix all the vandalism and clean up these
parks after they are trashed. these hardworking women and men who work for the park and it wasn't just the union leaders who came to this hearing on this issue, there were individual gardeners who showed up because they wanted to tell us how sick and tired they are of working so hard to take care of these parks and having them trashed. these gardener, park advocates and people who volunteer in parks and people who strongly strongly supported this legislation, they are not mean spirited. they do not believe in selective enforcement or enforcing disproportionately against lgbt people or people of color. they are not certainly ones that want to pave over park. these are people who care
passionately about our park systems and want to see them usable and good shape so everyone in this wonderful city are able to use these parks. i also want to address the allegation of selective enforcement. our police department is arguably the most progressive police department in this country. whatever issues one may have with the police department in one respect or another, when you compare this department to other departments in this country, this is a very progressive forward looking police department. this is the department whose chief of police when stopped and frisked came up publically and immediately who said stop and frisk isn't appropriate. he came up and disagreed with the mayor on that that's the kind of department we have. to suggest that this police
department is going to all of a sudden morph itself into a department that engages in a maliciousen for thement en n enforcement, i respect their position. this is a piece of legislation that will help us reduce vandalism in the park. we need more patrol officers and we need better resources in our police department and park control. this is not some sort of global solution, but it will have a positive impact. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> i want to talk a little bit about that because i think if there is one thing that i
completely agree with supervisor wiener is the fact that we do have an incredible police department. i think we have the best police department in the country. but i can tell you that i actually think that the police officers and members of the department deserve better than this. having sat on a police commission that that is responsibility to enforce the laws and to ensure that we are treating them well and the laws that are passed are clear and we mean for that law to be implemented. i think it's actually disrespectful to members of this department to say that we are going to pass the law but we don't mean to pass the law to enforce the way it's written. that's why we owe it to the police department that when we pass the law, that
it's clear as possible and when we enforce it, we enforcement by the lawful i think it's a disservice to do anything less. >> supervisor kim in >> thank you. i'm wondering if the supervisor would like -- also the cost of implementing this ordinance. >> i'm sorry, i couldn't hear what you said. >> i'm fine with supervisor kim's suggestion. >> okay, supervisor kim has made another set of amendments around the annual reporting.
supervisor breed. >> not on the amendment. >> any other discussion on the amendment? >> i would like to hear from the department. >> thank you supervisor, i don't think we keep that kind of data. so that's actually an issue. i don't think we track citation data by risk. >> supervisor breed. it's not about the amendment. >> then supervisor kim. >> when i get a moving violation ticket which i haven't got in a long time, they list my race and gender and date of birth on that
citation. i don't know why it's difficult to add that. i know a lot have concerns about selective enforce many. if we are not doing selective enforcement, i think that data has to support that when we get our report back. >> the question around the spirit of supervisor kim's amendment, i think it's more direct towards the city attorneys office and the city's practice on collecting data. i know i have asked for information in race and gender and hiring practices within the department and i have been told they don't collect that information. would we be able to collect this information? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. i'm not sure if we can speak total practicality of
keeping that information. >> we keep gender and race profiles for all citation for the reason of transparency to ensure there is no racial profiling. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar? >> yeah. can i say i'm supportive of these amendments. i think what we are losing is how these legislation are targeting the city. it sounds like it's going to pass by 6-5. let's get on with it and vote and vote our conscious on this if we can please. >> any further discussion. on the amendment as offered by supervisor kim, colleagues can we take this amendment without objection. unless there is any further discussion. let's take a roll call vote on the underlying ordinance. supervisor breed, were you on the roster?
>> yes, i want to make a clarification because this impacts district 5 more than other districts. and where i'm not able to get a clear understanding of is how these things are tracked from the parks and recreation department in terms of issuance of citations. i do know that on a daily basis on buena vest -- vista park, there is a consistent violation. so i'm just wanting to understand the clarity on how there is a joint effort in terms of the p.d. in providing information so we have accurate data from both departments. >> sounds like a question to
the definite heads to the general manager or chief? >> we are happy to keep records of any citations issued. i would like to make one point. there was some discussion earlier about how sit lie isn't enforced. it's represented the way it would be 3 years ago and it's more to move a contact and move along versus criminalizing the conduct. that's the same way that i would fore see the officers applying this. the question was raised about stop and frisk, if being in the park is a code violation, the officers can move to contact without any sort of profiling as if there would be probable
cause. refer them to services. i don't see them as being a citation machine and to some officers to move in the park. with that said. we are happy to track whatever you want us to track and use our tracking measure for race and gender make-up. >> just for clairity, i want to let you know members of the station they are citing for sit lie and the actual consequences for citations. we have a considerable amount of hours dealing with this problem but no follow through after the citations are issued and that is problem that i have ultimately and i appreciate all the work that the department is doing to try to deal with this.
we need to provide more support around enforcement which includes consequences for citations which doesn't happen. thank you. >> okay. any further discussion, madam clerk, let's call the role. >> the clerk: supervise yee, aye, breed no, avalos no, chiu aye, campos no, cohen aye, ferrel aye, supervisor kim, no. supervisor mar, no, supervisor tang, aye, wiener aye. 6 ayes 5 no. >> this ordinance is passed. ask for order in the chamber please. thank you. colleagues we are now the behind on our
agenda on a number of items. what i would like to go to is our special commendation and 2, 3:00 p.m. orders. >> thank you for reminding me that we had other items on the agenda. district 6 has the as smallest parks in the city. when we have the ability to create open spaces in the district. it's something that we really would like to celebrate. i want to bring up
two individuals who are really instrumental in allowing us to make these parks what they are. please comp. e -- come up. this is a long commendation. this is a neighborhood that was previously gated up and we have many members of our rincon hill.al star as i understand was behind this idea. he's worked at emerald funds for 15
years. he's served on the board of the west bay. i want to recognize this board for long-term committed to the city. they know this is not their only project. they are very committed to this neighborhood. they understand the public benefits are good for their business as well as their residents and their neighbors. as i mentioned before, the district has a small acreage of parks. 1.4 acres per park. members of the rin conhill was concerned that there wasn't park space available for many of the residents that are slowly moving into this neighborhood. emerald park was designed by the emerald fund to address this need and to benefit the
entire area. the emerald park donated. to ensure this park was fully accessible. when we required the parks to maintain and be accessible and well maintained. this conservation easement is basically permanent. i'm showing that emerald park will remain open forever. i want thank our two local residents and developers and providing this amenity to our neighborhood and appreciate this. thank you. >> i want to echo what
supervisor kim what you guys really epitomize what your effort and community is about and the need for our open space is incredibly extreme and found a way that is majorly generous. i know we understand that and from my perspective i want to thank you as well. with that, if you would like to say a few words, i would love to hear r -- from you. >> i will say the city has been good to us and it's been a previous to be able to give back something to this city and make it better. and this community where we both li -- live and work does need a lot of parks and it center for the community. thank you very much. >> second points. it's marvelous to be in the position to give back something. we've
had a great, i have worked here for 35 years and it's been a marvelous place to work, thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, supervisor kim, colleagues, we have 2, 3:00 p.m. special orders. i know this will be a long one. madam clerk can you call the items. to valencia. >> the clerk: item 130896:valencia street] hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the planning commission's approval of a
final mitigated negative declaration case no. 2007.1457ee adopted and issued on september 30, 2010, for the proposed demolition of an existing one-story commercial building and construction of a five-story mixed-use building within the valencia street nct neighborhood commercial transitt zoning district and a 55-x height and bulk district on property located at 1050 valencia street, assessor's block no. 3617, lot no. 008. district 88 appellant; stephen m. williams on behalf of the liberty hill neighborhood associationn filed september 12, 20133. clerk of the boardd >> the clerk: sf 2512341234 item 130897:[affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd12341234 item 130897:[affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd12341234 item 130898:[reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd 1234 item 130899:declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd 10/22/2013; continued12341234 >> our consideration involves the analysis and completeness of as per usual -- we give those time to speak. we hear from the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes for presenting it's analysis and we'll hear from the real
party in interest and members of the public that support the issuance of the negative declaration for up to two 2 minutes and the final speaker will have 3 minutes for rebuttal. let me ask the district supervises or if you have any preliminary comments. >> thank you mr. president, i want to thank members of the community who have come out for this ceqa appeal. this is a project that has been pending for quite a few years before any of us were in office that's how long this project has pending. i think the environmental issue went out in 2007.f i'm not mistaken. it is
a project in the even neighborhood zoning area on valencia street. i want to just note that i look forward to the presentation and the testimony of the public and i think it's important for the folks to keep very much in mind that this is an appeal under ceqa, the environmental quality act. the declaration was issued about 2 years ago and 1 year ago there was a discretionary review hearing at the planning commission that the dr is currently, that it did occur about a year ago. and so this is a ceqa appeal. and i think it's important that we are focusing on the ceqa issue.
with that, i look forward to discussions today. >> thank you. let me ask the appellants if you can come up to the microphone. you have 10 minutes for the initial presentation. if you have multiple speakers, you can divide it up as you see fit. m are williams. >> thank you, my name is steven williams presenting the a little liberty hill association represents the businesses in the liberty hill historic association to advocation the quality of life in the area, character and historic nature of the area. the association through this appeal challenges the accuracy and sufficiency of the final mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed project at 1050 valencia
street. to support the appeal, the association retained a well-known ceqa expert richard grassity of grassity environmental consulting and he received and commenting on the declaration of the board and provided that written testimony to the board with our initial pl appeal that is exhibit 2, his resume is attached to exhibit 3 of our appeal and he's here to explain his testimony and his conclusion that he reached after the review of the nasdaq that it is inadequate. appellants are asking the board grant the association appeal and require that the negative declaration be krenthd and amended or that an eir be prepared for this project. as set north our
appeal, the negative declaration is a superficial document, riddle with errors, omissions which rely on virtually nothing but unsupported conclusions from the beginning. the planning department and the developer have failed to adequately describe. even now in the documents placed on this board, the department gets the setting wrong, gets the project wrong. so that's how they defended the particular project. our first issue was the failure to describe the project. the basic fundamental requirement of the ceqa is not met is the project is wrong. the project in the new documents by the department is wrong. that's a starting point for every environmental review. we need an accurate
consistent project subscription. here it's simply objectively incorrect. the department setting wrong, the height of the existing building is wrong. the height of the proposed project not fully disclosed. the building is not 55 feet tall. it's going to be 70 feet tall. it shows that 70-foot building is viewed from the historic district. the environmental reveal that the close site is critical to the declaration itself. one of the most important of the overriding assumption to the document is the unsupported and undefined conclusion that the project is transit rich and because the area is considered
transit rich, therefore building a multiuse unit with no parking either for residents for commercial tenants and loading for impact on transportation and parking. that term transit rich has no meaning, nor a definition. more importantly what the environmental document fails to mention is during the tendey of this application, things changed radically in the district. the munis line was removed from service. that's not mentioned. another aspect of this issue is that valencia street itself is specifically referred to and defined in the transportation element of the general plan. it's classified
not as a transit rich street but as a principal bicycle artery. this is at odds with the zoning that was put on this particular area by the even neighborhoods plan as the neighborhood commercial transit district. in fact the collector street is specifically defined as a relative low capacity street which serves a local distribution agency with major arteries. so based on that identification, no issues are discussed in the transportation element or environmental documents. that is a crucial failure. none of the information is disclosed or analyzed in the declaration.
this is an in depth and accurate analysis of the existing factual situation and the potential impacts of the project. the environmental document gets the project description wrong. the department's reaction in a late filed supplemental document is still no impacts. it gets the heights of the buildings wrong. the reaction is oh well, we got it wrong, but there is no impact. failures to disclose and discuss major changes to the presumption of the transit rich areas and the reaction is oh well, that doesn't matter, there are other transit option three or 4 blocks away. if that is true, any place in the city is transit rich. the appellants mention today today borat -- board that this does matter.
this mission information crucial facts in issue such as the true stated transit areas in the area, classic of valencia street under the general plan, how it fits into the the city's transportation plan. it shows the fundamental miss judging of the promise and the area and the result is a fatal flaw in this environmental document. it must be corrected or amended. the department also feels to fully address the historic district and the visual impacts on the historic district from this proposed project. first of all as i talked about there is not a single conceptual rendering anywhere in the document which would show the impact and in fact the rooftop mechanicals and elevator e pent houses are not shown
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on