tv [untitled] October 7, 2011 2:30am-3:00am PDT
>> our issue is not affordable housing but any use that it serves. this is not chp or with larkin street. this is about the choice of this particular building in a myriad of zoning exceptions. the city could have avoided this process. i have a thought and with the outline and outreach plan. out reach in this case can mean identifying decision makers that will support and pass required legislation that includes the
planning department, the mayor, his staff. after they reach out to the supporters among the community leaders, neighborhood associations and can influence the back of the project. only after the project is virtually insured legislative passage, political cover did they contact the neighbors. they have traded an uncooperative atmosphere with the stress of the people in the area. the project sponsor has purchasing deadlines for the building and they needed the zoning from the city. there is $4.4 million to spy out reach.
no decision makers lived near the property. >> let me ask anyone watching this if you wish to speak in support of the appellants, please come up to the hearing room and we will give you an opportunity shortly. >> i am from the marina community association. the implication both of this and what they have during is to imply that organizations to not support use housing. we do. we think it is york responsibility to get the most that you can. the other problem with this
project as you are deliberately done nine this to a good number of people that need it because you're going with a gold-plated cadillac project. it is your responsibility to guard the public money whether it comes from a federal fund or a state fund or a city fund. get the most for these people that need it the housing, don't give them some gold-plated projects that is not really accommodate 25 people. this is being billed for but $280 million a square foot. that is a ridiculous use of public money and it is your responsibility to make sure that
the money that the city has is used to get the maximum benefit for these young people out here in need housing. i don't think the rest don't care if that is near my house or someone else. >> i am here today to ask you to give us answers regarding this project. transparency is the most notable problem. the lack of any type of community outreach. secondly, we have now determined that the units are subject to control.
there is no transparency for the selection criteria of the 24 people that will get these rooms, 24 rooms. there is one directly across the street which is controlled by lottery, by the mayor's office. i want to know why there is no selection. who will be doing this? the final thing i would like to say is that if they age in place, they will not really be -- this is not serving the community that is supposed to serve. >> thank you, supervisors.
all i'm asking is that you consider the impact on people like me. working against a done deal is difficult. please, do your jobs. >> next speaker. >> thank you. i have to agree. we did not find out anything about this until it was a done deal. we asked a lot of questions, we have not gotten any solid
answers. we have an answering -- asking the question. we never really found out. for the investors in this project? i still have not found out what the public or private. we probably know it is the mayor's office. who is the person that is getting the tax break? hey, maybe i would unlike some tax breaks if i had been approached. let the big concern is the parking in the neighborhood. there were 6500 bar and restaurant seats. there are 1800 workers, 700 offices.
only 1395 parking spaces. i invite any of you to come to the area about now and try to get a parking space. we will get more people. the study that they sent is flawed because it shows that people over 62 who live near supermarkets and cleaning and things like that of have cars. guess what, no one over 62 will be living there. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon.
i am a resident but not really a neighbor of this project. i speak to you more as a mother and taxpayer. the big problem is that this is a special use district for one building and it creates an incredible presence. the project sponsor can increase the number of rooms from 16 to 24. this makes the project viable for the price tag. a din of could see door room would have cost about $4 million. -- a low occupancy dorm room could have cost about $4 million. this was sponsored by other supervisors outside the district and i understand they did not come and meet the
neighborhood associations to meet -- find out with the objections are to it. this is stacked against anyone really opposed at this point. i don't think that that is much to do. it calls into question the way we run our city. you have someone from the middle of a district who gets overruled in people and other areas. the supervisors might not be responsible to the needs of that district, will not vote for you. i know that some of to iran in the general election, you are outside the purview of district two. -- i know that some of you were in the general election.
kids need more space. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have a key items. i had a property a very close. at the first is a letter from my tenant, the new proposal, if approved, we would have to reconsider our tenancy. we do not want to live near a housing project for at risk youth. one comes from my own personal history. after college, i worked for six months in asheville, north carolina. for the most part, these were
well developed and they have little chance of changing their tendencies. a young man brought a gun to the program. this was not the first time this had happened and it would not be the last. unfortunately, they are littered with stories like this and sometimes they turn more serious. the 24 at risk youth living next door, i don't want to take my chances waiting for the next life threatening experience. it was claimed that the minute that the finding was announced, they began an extensive community are reached. i live directly next door and in early may of 2010, this is what i received. and notice of intent to approve a housing development. this was already a done deal.
>> thank you. >> i was not going to speak today. i just came to see what was happening. we were originally told with 24 rooms dawns when i went to the other hearing, the public speeches, then the commissioners get to say what they say. they called us elitist. when has an elitist ever been at the bottom of a hill? they are putting that in a newspaper and we're supposed to go for that? that is a done deal. we will see if it is. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, i and a property owner
in the area and i just have one statement. october 22nd, 2010, the neighborhood advisory committee was formed. i found this out through the neighborhood association. there was a letter stating that they would support population density and when the majority of participants refused to sign the document, the chp suspended the vote after one meeting. >> hello. the chp purchased this and it is a special use district.
when searching for a site for the project, there criteria was a building was for 20 units. this is scheduled for 16 minutes. this is based on the city wide definition of group housing which will allow them to have up to 50 prominent residents. based on the special use district, the edward can have up to 98 people there at one time. this project is far too small. it seems like this is not suitable. there is no outside space, there is no parking, the rooms are very small. i don't know about the kitchen and dining facilities and whether there is a group room where everyone can meet. i think that the area is not a good area and we quite disapprove of it.
>> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my family owns the project adjacent. this is not mandatory transition. the tenants will find a standard lease with no time limits. there is no actual program for the expectations and goals. the chp cannot get control, they went out. i went hours listening and transcribing the entire hearing and at the end of the day, i witnessed a disregard for neighborhood questions and concerns from all except for one commissioner. it has been clear that the mind
of these commissioners had been made up before the meeting started. that is denying us to process. this is setting a dangerous precedent. the commissioners opinions were misplaced, and accurate, and in some places offending. this not what we expect from a committee. prior to the meeting, it had already been circulated in the hall that it would be fine if to one. commissioner antonini was the only one who addressed the size of the project. they express discontent regarding the special use request. they polished that the site has a lot of challenges, overcrowding. you cannot make it smoke-free, of all free, or probably drug free. many questioned the extensive community outreach from the chp.
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> and all the hearings they have asked what alternative sites did you see. she did not look. 2230 lombard, there are 29 rooms. they have been remodeled. they were on sale at the same time. larger rooms, larger bathrooms. there was an office, this was to let people in and out. all they needed to do was add an elevator and laundry facility and for all those parking
prices, lots of parking places, they could have put a nice to me the room. they did not look at alternatives. other people ask what sites to look at in the neighborhood and in the city. i have a list of 16 right here that were available at the time. it must have been in a bad area. the edwardian at market street was for sale at the same time. you are not stopping the clock? i have not finished. bayside in in the fisherman's wharf is something to do. it is for 171,000 square feet
and does give people a lot more amenities. there are dozens of them. they did not look. this is not in my backyard. let's do what's best for the kids. thank you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? i want to make sure that anyone from the outside room has an opportunity to speak on behalf of the appellants. ok. this is it. >> my name is jeff would. i am with the town hall association. i am interested in maintaining the quality of our neighborhoods. the city has proposed to change the zoning but it is not taking full responsibility for the new conditional use. by that, what i mean is, the
city is waving open space requirements, they are waving parking requirements, they are waving a backyard requirements and there is virtually no common space in the plan that was proposed to the planning commission. community housing partners, to their credit, they recognized that these are problems with the proposed facility. they have quite willingly offer some solutions. they have offered to provide extra staffing. they have offered to provide an additional approximately 3000 square feet of common area community space for the residence. they have also suggested a
community oversight commission -- committee. these suggestions need to be incorporated into the conditional use if the zoning controls are removed. not just glibly avoided like the planning commission did, this is something that supervisors need to look at. it is probably true for every affordable housing unit in the city. it needs some of this kind of input. i think these conditions will protect not only the neighborhood, but it will improve the quality of life of residents. thank you. president chiu: thank you. any other members of the public which to speak on behalf of the appellants? ok. seeing none, let's go to a presentation from our planning department. >> i will do my best to be heard here.
good afternoon president chiu and members of the board. i am lisa gibson with the planning department. in joining me today is my colleague andrea contraras, who is the final coordinator for the negative declaration that is the subject of today's appeal. also with me is annemarie rogers, who will address the conditional use application. tina tam will be available for questions about national resources. the planning department sent to two appeal responses responding to a total of two letters that were set by the appellate as a result to the final neg dec appeal. if any of you need our latest memo, we have extra copies. we also of copies for members of the public.
after careful consideration of the concerns raised in the testimony today, the planning department continues to find that th ffmmd was appropriately issued. we will up ould the decision to issue and fmnd and returned the product to the department for an eir. i would like to turn things over to andrea who will conclude the presentation and wrap things up. >> thank you. i am with the planning department. the department found that the proposed conversion of a 29-room hotel to a 25-room group housing units includes a sud would not
result in a significant effect on the environment. the litigation measures have been agreed to buy the project sponsor and a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. the department's response to the primary concerns raised by the appellate can be grouped into the four main points. two related to the environmental review process and two related to the fmnd. the department maintains that the preliminary maintained negative declaration was properly circulated. and the city complied with the california environmental quality act, or ceqa, prior to any approval. in response to the substance- related concerns, the department asserts that the project density would not result in any significant impact. and the fmn,'s analysis was
inadequate. preparation of an eir is not warranted. in one process-related issue is the circulation of the pmnd. the department circulated it for a 20-day review period, consistent with the ceqa requirements. the project is not a statewide, regional, or area significance as defined by ceqa, therefore it did not require a 30-day review period or circulation to the state agencies cited by the appellants. the second process-related issue is compliance with ceqa prior to project approval, which the city did. initially, in july of 2010, the department determined that the product was exempt from ceqa and issued a certificate of determination of exemption. the department found that the proposed change of use with
minor alterations, the building would not result in any significant environmental impact. at that time, their policy was not required pursuant to the district ceqa guidelines that were in a factory that the assumption determination was appropriately issue. after the department issued the exemption determination, members of the public continue to raise concerns about the project's impact. out of an abundance of caution, the department decided to prepare an initial study to determine whether and eir was required. in doing so, we consider the potential impact of the project under the air district ceqa guidelines. the department acted prudently and cautiously to identify a significant air quality impact, even though the related air quality significant threshold was not technically applicable to the project. the initial study identified in
the mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than severe levels. the project sponsor agree to this measure and the department issued a pmnd. the project loan approval is not considered a project approval under ceqa and therefore we approve the loans before the ceqa analysis. i would like to address the issues raised by the appellant. the offense of the density increase. the proposed density increase from 16 to 24 units was analyzed. while the project would result in an increase in group housing density, the department's found its assets would be less than significant under ceqa. with regard to land use, the project would not specifically divide an established community, conflict with land use policies adopted for the purposes of environmental litigation, it
would not conflict with a conservation plan, and it would also not sit -- substantially impact the existing character of the project the city. thus, the project would not have a significant land use impact. in addition, the project would not result in significant impacts to population and housing. it would result in a total of 25 residents and employees for .01% increase in the residential population in the marina neighborhood. while this may be noticeable to immediate neighborhoods, the increase would not substantially change the existing area wide population and the resulting entity would not exceed levels that are common in urban areas such as san francisco. further, the project would not displace people are housing or result in the need for additional housing. regarding cumulative and grow-