Legislation‎ > ‎

Land Use Committee Outcome

View the Webcast

View the Webcast
The City of San Francisco offers free streaming video recordings of the Board of Supervisors committee meetings. Use the "Jump To" menu to skip forward to Item #3.
Updated: 10/21/2008
 
On Monday, October 20th the Board of Supervisors committee on Land Use and Economic Development heard arguments for resolutions 081004 & 081005. The committee unanimously endorsed the resolutions and they will move to the full Board of Supervisors for a vote on Tuesday, October 28th. You can read about the resolutions here on our web site.

What you can do to help

The Resolutions still have to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors (scheduled for the Board Meeting on Tuesday, October 28th at 1:00pm). Between now and then please consider doing some or all of the following:
  1. Write a letter or Email to all the supervisors supporting the legislation.
    Start with our Sample Letter, (great for printing or email),
    or if you use Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express you can use this Sample Email.
  2. Call the Board of Supervisor members expressing support.
    You can look up their phone numbers on the Board Web site.
  3. Attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting and wave at your favorite Supervisor to show your support.

Committee on Land Use and Economic Development Hearing Summary

Supervisor Elsbernd was able to include amendments to the resolutions that addressed two of our four concerns, and promised to submit a new resolution right away to address one of our additional remaining concerns.
Concern #1: Reduce the number of units that qualify for the additional interim controls from 20 units to 10 units (NOT ADDRESSED)
We had asked that the number of units that qualify for and require a Conditional Use permit be reduced from 20 units in a single project to 10 units in a single project. Supervisor Elsbernd and the City Attorney said that in order to change that number they would have to re-draft the resolutions and then post them for comment for an additional nine days (which would mean a continuance). Due to scheduling issues, the whole Land Use Committee wouldn't be available to review the modifications at their next hearing, which could push approval of the resolution to near the end of the year. We took a quick poll and agreed that we'd rather have the controls NOW for 20 unit projects than wait and risk projects getting approved without the interim controls. We accepted the 20-unit threshold as-is.
Concern #2: Extend the boundaries of the area for both resolutions North to Taraval St. and West to the Beach (INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTIONS)
They modified the wording of this point to specifically call out including traffic and transit impacts throughout the project neighborhood at least north to Taraval Steet and west to Skyline Blvd and the Great Hwy. We think this is both important and significant, and are very pleased the modification was made.
Concern #3: Include impact on Transit, not just Traffic (INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTIONS)
They modified the wording of the resolution 081004 to include both traffic and public transit impacts. This ensures that the L-Taraval Muni line and the M-Ocean View Muni lines are considered in any traffic assessment, both in how they will be impacted by growth and how they could impact the flow of traffic through the neighborhood.
Concern #4: Noticing of Neighbors under Conditional Use is less stringent than the SF Planning Code requires for other building permits (NOT ADDRESSED - WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION)
Normally, when you build a house (or make additions to one) you have to send notice to your surrounding neighbors and allow 30-days for them to comment before you can be granted a permit. This is documented in the City Code Section 311(c) for residential construction and Section 312(d) for commercial construction. Conditional Use permits have shorter waiting periods. We want to ensure that by requiring Conditional Use permits for projects in the area, we don't inadvertently give builders a loophole to fast-track their projects. We asked that THE SAME noticing requirements that are defined in City Code Section 311(c) and 312(d) be applied to Conditional Use permits granted under resolution 081004.
Unfortunately, the City Attorney said that making that change would require that the resolution be rewritten and posted for comment for an additional nine days. However, Supervisor Eslbernd asked if it would be possible to provide a NEW ADDITIONAL resolution that clearly spells out the noticing requirements and submit that as follow-on legislation. The Attorney said that would be acceptable. Supervisor Elsbernd requested that the City Attorney begin drafting that legislation immediately, and promised to submit the formal request to for it to the Attorney's office by Tuesday, October 21st. We feel confident that this will be done, and will be following up with Supervisor Elsbernd over the next two weeks to monitor progress.
Comments