tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 12, 2018 10:00pm-11:01pm PST
match when those are inhabited apartments or units there. so i think that's the way you want to go. you want to make them more inspiring and take elements of what we think is great about the city and neighborhoods and about projects and hoping we can encourage that to happen in future developments. a question about where they apply when there's existing and there's western soma. what happens when they get together? >> the urban design guidelines are at the bottom of the stack. we have the historics district design guidelines and design guidelines. the top ones supercede below.
in terms of historic district, when those guidelines are adopted they would supercede the specific area design guidelines including upper market street and all the ones we have now, there's guidelines for the 100 block of lc street. so those get much more specific. and in the historic districts we have to remember we have lots of sites in historic districts where there's non-contributing component. have you elements that are going to be used to help define what a new building is go to be. we're looking to specific characteristics. there's a lot that may not be covered. the sequa process always takes precedence.
>> commissioner: i think that's important. we do see projects in historic districts. there's elements where we want it to apply. there's more sensitivity to context but they're called out generally in the historic guidelines and that's paid attention to more rigorously than in other neighborhoods that are not historic districts. i think these make sense. i encourage folks. i think there's an oddness about the discussion. and i encourage people to read it and how they were applied.
that's how we see staff face projects in neighborhoods. and i think the process makes sense and we should continue on looking at this. commissioner richards. >> i want to step back in and piggy back off this. i'm serious if we can get one building from each neighborhood, dog patch can give you and you can give one. would the a.i.a. engage would you do a retro analysis of this to see? david, you can help.
i'd love to be involved because it sounds like fun. >> maybe we'll have an informational memo. we're not that far apart. in march we can decide what to do. i'm not directing your staff. if david wants to volunteer we'll pick three buildings and talk about how to do it. did i just volunteer i think we all want to more it forward and it's a good way to do it. >> commissioner: any other comments? thank you very much. thank you for the input. >> commissioners, item 11.
written departments will be accepted until 5:00 at the planning department on january 16. >> i am the coordinator for the project. with me is preservation planner and also the project sponsor is present. the item before you is the review and comment on the 500 turk street report. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft pursuant to the california
environmental quality act and san francisco's local procedures. for approval is requested at this time. the project review period nor project's draft e.i.r. began november 22, 2017 and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on january 16, 2018. i'll now provide a brief overview of the project. the project site is in approximately 19,000 square foot lot at the northwest corner of turk and larkin street. it would demolish an existing tire and automobile service building and surface parking lot and construct an eight-story building containing 107 affordable units and one manager's unit and there was be
an impact on historic architectural resources. the draft e.i.r. found impacts relate to archeological resources and construction noise and air quality could be mitigated to a less than significant level. all other impacts were found to be less than significant. a meeting before the historic preservation commission was held december 6, 2017. i've provided you with the copy of the h.p.c.'s leter. they found the alternatives analyzed. today the department is seeking accuracy and adequacy of the information. for members of the public who wish to speak, state your name and speak slower and clearly so
the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not here to respond to comments today. all verbal comments received today and during the public comment will be transcribed and responded to in a document. revisions to the draft e.i.r. will be made as appropriate. those interested in submitted written comments may do so by e-mail or hard copy to the e.i.r. coordinator, san francisco planning department 1615 mission street, san francisco. all comments must be received by the end of the comment period 5:00 p.m., january 16, 2018. unless have you questions i suggest we open the public hearing on the item. >> commissioner: thank you. we will now open it up to public comment on 500 turk street project draft environmental
report. mr. smith. >> i know there'll be a ballot measure hopefully in june for 100% affordable housing. i want to comment as much as i'm sure you love hearing from me and i cannot wait until i don't have to come up here for 100% affordable projects. we needed it yesterday and i'm excited about it. one thing that's off topic, don faulk had an opt -- op-ed that was wonderful. please approve the e.i.r. today.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you amends the inclusionary ordinance that units must be ownership units rather than renter units. it would allow the planning department to implement ab1505 otherwise known as the palmer mix. the costa hawkins prevented municipal rent controls. the municipalities can determine the amount while occupied but the owner could set it when vacated. the palmer properties versus the city of los angeles case found it violated costa hawkins. in other words, landlords should set the rates.
and right now it requires they be ownership. a project may qualify by an exception by receiving a modification. in some cases some projects run able to provide units because they're not seeking modifications that would result in a density bonus. these months must pay to the inclusionary housing fee or need modification. if a project is ineligible for a waiver from costa hawkins, it could result in there's an if it's not completed in time for a required hearing. in the past five years, the department has processed at least 100 costa hawkins
agreements. the ordinance before you would modify planning code section 415 to remove the language to require on-site ownership units only. staff has already been working with supervisor peskin to modify section 406 for ocii. the department of homelessness and supportive housing is a relatively new agency and will be subsidizing at least one affordable housing unit in the future. you can review the technical amendments to section 406 in the sheet i distributed. to date the department has not received public comments on the
amendment. we ask to be adopt the resolution. the ordinance would bring the planning code into compliance with california state law and provide off-sight -- and it would reduce the time and allow code compliant projects. it would help facilitate the production and it will enhance the city's supply of a permanently affordable rental housing for the housing program by providing on-site affordable rental. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you, commissioners and
planning staff for going through the technology elements and just cueing up how we got here. i'd be remiss not to mention an incredible bay area coalition was also in sacramento today in repeal of the costa hawkins act. though it did not pass, i want to acknowledge san francisco has taken a firm position against the costa hawkins act and it's another piece of legislation against the work locally and state level to combat the affordable housing crisis. i want to mention one other amendment supervisor peskin intends to make when it's considered by the land use and transportation committee, that's to conform to section 124.
so on the language -- sorry, i'm out of breath. in anticipation of that meeting on page 13, section 124, subsection 1,we will probably seek to amend to strike the language if any designated units will be rental units, the sponsor must follow the section as provided by the planning director and may execute the agreement under the terms in the section. so that is i believe another technical amendment we intend to make at committee. with that, i think my presentation's done. thank you to the planning staff and commissioners. >> commissioner: thank you, we'll open the item up for public comment. is there any public comment on item 12? seeing no public comment,
commissioner johnson. >> we'll ask you to restate the proposed amendment for the january 29 -- sorry, you were talking real fast. >> apologize. page 13, section 124, subsection 1. and it was provided in the subsection the planning director or director of mohcd may execute such agreement as specified intersection 105.5. that is what we would be deleting. >> commissioner: so that is here so we'd be approving it today and recommending it going forward?
>> thank you, good clarifying. >> commissioner: missioner moore. >> commissioner: i won't name names but there's been people confused by costa-hawkins over the years though we've seen agreements attached to projects. it's another form of legal gymnastics we've had to do over the years to apply our inclusionary law to new development. i'm happy the 1805 passed. it eases a lot of things for our city policywise and for our
staff in doing the gymnastics. i'll make one quick note. this is because they no longer have to pay a fee or get a variance or change their project. that's something i'm hoping the general public understands. one thing that i might challenge the commission and staff to do over time is how 1805 will change how much inclusionary units we'll get in projects for home sf which is about code-complying projects. i know it's not an easy equity. even if you look at the analysis done the first time it was
passed, it was a long laborious process to get a sense of what the new plymouth would yield in terms of numbers of units and types of units and things like that. i think ab1505 will help increase the number of units we get particularly as we have programs like our local affordable bonus program to allow for more project are quote, unquote, code complying because they're in our code. i think we should be looking at making -- trying to quantify that for ourselves and our own policy basis. other wise, this is great. it follows along with the passage of 1805 and simplifies things for the city so move to approve. >> commissioner: second. >> commissioner: commissioner melgar. >> i want to make sure i said thank you to supervisor peskin for his leadership in taking this on and getting it done. thank you.
>> commissioner: rich. i want to thank staff. there's been legal gymnastics and it was a way of encouraging projects to not meet code requirements. that's the bizarre effect. projects needed an exception to qualify to put them on site. there was a weird logic ensue. we're grateful this is moving forward. frankly can save all of us time and keep the projects moving. >> is it possible somewhere else
in california, so someone may not like we're taking the measure. costa-hawkins did not originate in san francisco as we know. is there somebody question this as a way to deal with costa-hawkins? >> commissioner: ab1505 is a limited alteration to costa-hawkins. it only applies to inclusionary housing. so as a state law, it is applicable throughout the state. there may be jurisdictions who want to street rental or ownership housing differently but it is a state law that applies statewide and will allow local jurisdictions the relief from costa-hawkins. there may be other ways that local jurisdictions want to deal with rental housing or
inclusionary housing. >> commissioner: commissioners, if there's no further discussion there's a motion that's been seconded to approve the matter. >> we're recommending approval. >> commissioner: the code language is you approve it and the floor has the option to amend or deny. but with the amendment in the by staff, if the maker of the motion, you included that, yes? >> yes. >> and the motion, commissioner fong. commissioner johnson, commissioner koppel, commissioner moore and commissioner richards. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 13, the jackson
square special use district planning code amendment. >> today i'll be presenting an ordinance to mend -- amend the planning coat code code for eating and drinking in the use. >> thank you. i do have but i'd like to pass out to you an amended version of the file we interduesed introduced on tuesday. we've been able to address the amendments before the commission. i have here letters i'm not sure were submitted in time to get to your district but from the jackson square historic
association and to h.o.a.s in the boundary in support of the amendment. just very briefly, this is a packet of amendments. the substantive amendment is for the jackson square special use district. we've pursued as once in a decade cleanup of zoning and controls to match the status quo or advance the interest of community neighborhood groups. this one is no different in that regard. the principle amendment is to the jackson square s.u.d. relative to limited restaurants proposed to occupy a state that was currently or last legally occupied and this would require an addition use. this is not a groundbreaking
control. it exists in north beach and other parts of the city. in effect we're modifying the jackson square s.u.d. to adjust this. there'll be a diversity of conversations on retail strategy and vacancies, but we've seen the controls have facilitated a healthy mix of uses and actually is, i believe, one variable in keeping the vacancy rate healthy. the jackson square s.u.d. is an area of very very concise limited geographic boundaries. we're talking five or six blocks. about 100 ground floor
commercial spaces and they are not facing a vacancy problem today. the problem they are facing is a potential influx of bars, restaurants and limited restaurant uses that threaten to drive up rents on the existing mix of ground floor and art galleries and retail uses and professional service. i'm aware planning staff is recommending a 25% soft cap or another soft cap mechanism here today and an understand that is also consistent with recommendations made in other parts of the city. with respect to these concise boundaries of this district and the jackson square s.u.d. and the granular understanding of the needs of the blocks by the historic district, we think that keeping with the legislation as written today is what we prefer
the commission to recommend. again, we do not have a vacancy problem and the recommendation the planning staff we feel would exacerbate the problem. i'm looking forward to the discussion and hear to address concerns you may have and thank you, commissioners. >> commissioners, the department supports the ordinance because it further the goals to protect and enhance specialty retail and encouraging retail diversity which applicable to the special use district but they believe simpler and straightforward resolution can aid it goal and the eating and drinking uses should be set at 25. the cap would be clearer and
more easily understood and continue to manage and protect diversity in the special district and still affords modest growth in eating and drinking uses in light of the given trends in the retail sector. the substitute ordinance has use requirement for office, service and institutional uses locating along pacific avenue. here's a version of that in case you only got one and this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> commissioner: any public comment on this item? seeing none we'll close public comment.
types of business and this is more of a stick than a carrot. and we can throw out other carrots in the future against this particular stick but i want to make sure from my perspective we're incentivizing rather than deincentivizing. >> commissioner: commissioner johnson. >> i noticed the count of wanting to do a cap of 25 like nine business zoning differences. i guess i'd like to direct a question to question to supervisor lee, and there was an
implicit assumption for maybe it's a reality, that bars, limited restaurants and other businesses can command higher rent and therefore there's no cap that would be an opportunity for those businesses to take over a spot that maybe can't afford as much. as the superior there's not a vacancy at this point so what are thing thises non-food services are experiencing in trying to stay? >> and again, i think you're getting, commissioner, at the larger discussion i think is coming before the board in a couple hearings on the 22nd of
this month. >> restaurants and bars can incite more and we don't have a survey which would be lovely to have but incredibly difficult to obtain because landlords are not obligate to give up the information and it involves getting in touch with business owners and having a trust they'll give that information to you. we don't have to see that data. empirically we have this understanding and as we'll learn and discuss in the coming months or two, is how that can drive
vacancy in different ways and we had a conversation around cannabis. they'll be high-cash industries and there's an assumption they'll be able to pay higher rent are business owners holding off on renting to a clothing retailer or a bead shop or what have you. a diverse mix of not just curiosity shops but community-serving shops. i really appreciate that larger debate and think we should be engaged in that. been a call for a hearing on retail use strategy. both hearings are going to be interesting. with respect to the amendments before you today and an apologize for pivoting to the granular nature of the amendment today, we have a cler -- clear
understanding of the historic district association which is a long established advocacy group for members in that area. this amendment i think meets that. now, if we're to do a soft cap of 25%, i think we signal we can double the number of restaurants and bars at a time when the h.d.a. and h.o.a.s in this dense residential, historic part of town are asking for a limit on the 17 -- the h.d.a. thought it was 17 but the number of existing numbers and bars. the broader conversation is fascinating. i hope the commission can support this as a narrow and targeted effort to address the
needs in the jackson square s.u.d. >> commissioner: a couple points because our conversation today seems like it will hinge on what the planning staff has recommended. i see two different impacts. one is limiting the number, the actual number of these types of businesses, bars, limited restaurants that can be in the special use district. the staff has recommended 25. there are currently 16. the legislation recommends keeping it at the current number. the other piece is a location restriction. so similar to our discussion that we had weeks ago about the third street limited alcohol district. this legislation proposed that
the locations remain stable as well. if a bar is a bar, it can be a bar. if it's a limited restaurant, it's a limited restaurant. if it is not one of those things it cannot be changed and the planning staff suggests a cap of 25 of those types of businesses but if one's on one corner of green street and the other moves to the other corner of green street it's fine and supervisor's peskin's original legislation said that would be prohibited. so i think those are two different policy objectives. and i just want to make sure that's super clear. those are different and they have different impacts. people know my general thoughts on retail and active ground
floor use conversation in the city. i think we need to be ahead of the curve on the conversation and become more creative and flexible in what we think as active ground floor use in the hopes of allowing uses that may command different types of rents and abut for different ways for the public to interact with things on the ground floor. i think until that situation is settled. jackson square special use district is not suffering there vacancies. it has a diverse use of mixes. the legislation is to keep
businesses that are there, there, and to allow for other spaces to be other types of uses and keep that stable. from the policy argument of does that help with -- and there's no empirical data but in helping with rent it might actually. if you have different property owners that control each of the commercial properties, a hard cap of 25 doesn't mean anything to any individual property owner it's just can i get the rent i want in my space. that policy goal may be reached by the original legislation. i would challenge us to think about whether or not we agree with that. >> thanks. >> just to follow up on that, i think i get why this neighborhood would want a
restriction on the number of growth of restaurants and bars and it's close to downtown. you can see that potentially getting blown out the number of restaurants or bars in the neighborhood and currently it's a unique retail area that has a diversity. i'm trying to understand, i would prefer -- and i don't know if you're amendment addresses this or not, the amendment before, this issue of a cap verse whether it's 16 or 25 or an existing number verse, they're in the location they're in and that's the only place they can go. that seems odd because you can
cap it at 16 and move on but they can move within the district. what's your preference? >> there's another aspect in this historic neighborhood it's difficult and complicate to convert some of the buildings for the uses. on a practical level the flexibility and location isn't getting much for it doesn't really apply to a bar use or
limited use. there's that component of it. the other element of the h.o.a.s and not be inundated with the fun and awesome nightlife on broadway and the complexity of each one new use on what this means for their residential community as well. >> and i think you'll get so the cap and if something's already converted to a bar or restaurant. you'll only open up a new one if one goes out of business and as it's probably easier to use one already existing than convert another space.
and i prefer a cap. i don't have any preference but you cap it at the exact number it is now so it doesn't -- if the neighbors feel it shouldn't grow, it doesn't grow but there's flexibility to move it around. >> i'm happy of thinking of this as legislating a practical reality. >> commissioner: commissioner richards. >> interestingly enough i think it's an example and north beach is an example. . once a place -- and jackson square's become retail destination for men there's all these small stores opening up and there's barbers in the clothing stores and i walked around between christmas and new
year's and there's ancillary mens clothing stores. the problem is when you have too much of a good thing and have more bars and restaurants opening, as you're right, they start pushing out the retailers, then have you valencia street. it used to be majority retail and now it's majority restaurants and bars. what happens is it's over saturated and not the place to go anymore. if you have something that's working, i know it's social engineering but you have an experience with retail and it's right the way it is. i support the legislation as-is.
>> commissioner: commissioner moore? >> i'd like to bring it into the context of where it is. we have 45 to 50 properties where once it's there, it will always be that use. we have a large turnover even in restaurants. i remember this area from the mid '80s. never had one single restaurant except a small bar on the corner of pacific and stanton. everything else was antique
stores and galleries highly specialized but fit the intricacy of the district which was unique to san francisco. this one is so unique to san francisco, i think holding over a protective hand over this, just looking to prevent the worst is the right thing to do. we're sitting in the middle of what is restaurant and bar haven in san france. -- san francisco we have half a block north the bars and drinking and sports bars and then going up columbus we have
every bar and now reaching a variety of offerings into fishermen's wharf. i believe upholding this for what it is, is the right thing to do and towards the park you have 88 broadway with new restaurants. and i don't believe we need too much tug and pooping to respond to the observation that restaurants and there was an extremely successful restaurant at park
square 1 where everybody congregated in the ground floor of the condominium portion of the golden gateway. it was one of the hottest places of san francisco to go and disappeared and never recaptured itself and i think we'll see the same thing. if we create too much with the numerical cap, we're losing what we want to keep and hold high. i suggest we support the legislation as written without modifications that are proposed. >> commissioner: second. is that a motion? >> yes, it is a motion. >> commissioner: commissioner richards. >> i just wanted to say what she said. >> commissioner: commissioner fong. >> i was going to make a motion but one's been made to split the difference in land at 21 as the cap rather than 25. splitting between 16 and 25 and
21 being the drinking age. >> i made the motion and not interested in the numerical part. i'm interested in the site specific information of what is needed for this particular area in town. >> i agree that it works right now. i just think a little bit of heads-up should go to the neighborhood to give it growth not just shut down as it is unless you want a put a sunset on the s.u.d. >> i think it's good to relook at things. restaurants seem to be what works. we've seen in the past there was a limit on cafes and checking
back periodically, i prefer a number. if it's a number with slight growth it's better -- i think we're getting too location specific. i get the intent to get the number of restaurants from explode neighborhood. it's a large downtown core. >> commissioner: commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. it's interesting because i think the city would need rethinking in what is ground floor use. i think we have had more restaurants that closed than opened and that's always been the case. we've seen a lot of turnover and because of the restriction and what we traditionally think of
what you see when you're walking down the street in terms of commercial and business uses has lent to the tendency to think of cafes and food service and we need to rethink that. given that, this legislation allows what works to work until we have the citywide conversation. i'd be fine with no higher number than 16. the challenge for me is i think there are some merits at least in the transition period of saying if it's a bar, it's a bar and if it's a restaurant, it's a restaurant because i don't think the number prevent the incentives for property owners to go for the businesses without the regard to what the person down the street is doing.
i think the policy. i think i'm okay with the language proposed. we need to look at the active planning use and it's detrimental to the city. >> commissioner: commissioner fong. >> commissioner: i have to agree about citywide full retail ground floor and i have to agree with if you should count the number of full-service restaurants. if you're going to lock -- look at ones that are bars and quick-serve. i feel part is there's a lot of
bars and maybe we want to stop alcohol and the mission s.u.d. with the alcohol cap because of noise. while this say small direct and small town by comparison, i want to point out these types of moves trickle out worldwide. and the word gets out san francisco is not welcoming more restaurants and for someone in italy, jackson square is no different than union square. i think we're getting into a slippery slope of what's allowable and what isn't. >> i think it's a good stop-gap
measure until we figure out the larger conversations and have a low vacancy rate, that's amazing because things are going so fast. we need to look at staff, time, available or not reteal -- retail keeps coming up but it's working and let's keep it work until something goes wrong i can assume it will still be working. >> commissioner: commissioner moore, can you restate the motion was it to approve the
motion with the amendment submitted today. >> it leaves the legislation as drafted by the supervisor we mutual agreement other than the modifications. >> commissioner: there's a motion seconded to approve the matter with modifications as submitted to the record today. on that motion, commissioner fong. >> i wasn't sure what modification means -- >> commissioner: on that motion,
francisco conservatory of music at 200 van ness. overall, the project would construct housing for the students and faculty, educational performance and ground floor uses. in addition, the project would include replacement housing for the 27 dwellings currently on site. the plan is for the project and conditional use authorization and the development agreement that have been requested. at the hearing the department is asking the commission initiate a general plan amendment to revise map 5 by changing the height designation from 96 to 120 feet at the project site. this initiation allows the commission to consider adoption of the proposed amendment at a further day scheduled for february 8 of next month. you'll hear further information
on the development agreement, an overview of the project and about the building's design. this concludes my presentation and i'm here for any questions. >> great, thank you. i'm the project manager in the office of workforce development. while we don't have a final document to share, i'd like to describe the development agreement for the project. it will require fees and requirements in the code. in dissatisfaction, the san francisco conservatory of music will replace one for one units affected. they'll be replace the with brand new units on the third and fourth levels with dedicated elevator and private-entry access. the sponsor will provide a robust relocation program for
the residents to comparable temporary housing as close as possible during the construction of the new building. the conservatory will provide tenants with a clear right to return to their replacement units at the same rent and submit it to the san francisco rents control ordinance for the life of the building and will company the company the development agreement. the sponsor will work with the tenants to address concerns to relocation access. i'm available for any questions, thanks. >> thank you, i'm president of the conservatory of
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on