Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  July 31, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
concerning the project on 901, digesting 1217th street adopted on the june 2016 general assembly resolved that the coalition for san francisco neighborhood urges the board of supervisors to grant the appeal of the eir and overturn the certification and ceqa for 90116th street and 17th street in addition he sent out a couple of letters i'll mention a couple of things for the record it came to my attention. >> huge amount of transportation that is come in the city a huge amount of traffic that we're seeing coming in along the freeways and the bridges and that an actual coming before because of a huge
12:01 pm
number of pdr businesses that were forced out of the neighborhood so, now all the services that involve trucks they used to be crow town traffic now really no way to getting into the weeds traffic if you'll have a lot of people you have to have trucks bringing in fresh food every day and plumbers and contributions and people that will not, commuting so we've made and huge error in our judgment of what we need not neighborhood it seems to me all of a sudden those people are here this is what you see coming in so next you think about your plan and think for your neighborhood - >> thank you thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm carolina new be in castro
12:02 pm
hill on this 10 or 11 years before supervisor cowen became our representative and moourns bought a house on pennsylvania avenue and have a obstructed view with large trees there they were one day cut down the reason we want to commend tell you the story i want to underline the community involvement in coastline it is being a tight community and so there was an empty lot all the trees were removed my husband found a discarded princess tree someone abandon and planned it and a neighbor got on idea and she planted an entire garden that is just an amazing garden on a piece of land between mccoppin exit to
12:03 pm
18th street and many people in potrero hill have given back to the neighborhood and ann has a driven project the only piece of green space that is new in our neighborhood since we've lived there 11 years because ann building as far i know no green space and in the city terraces are public space and courtyards are public space i think this is travesties in addition i've given up driving my car and commute on foot and bicycle and there is so much road rage i cannot get into third street to get downtown so i have to go on mccoppin and make a right on mississippi we learned at the planning meeting two large plays
12:04 pm
are removed for trucks coming in. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm rachel i'm an artist live and work in san francisco i have a tiny tiny studio in the mission and consider myself one of the lucky ones for now so many buildings that are home to artists are turned into luxury condos and those of us with studios with waiting for the action to fall the first policy goal of the eastern neighborhoods plans is i quote to insure a production and repair businesses in the city mainly by reserving land their displacing one and 9 thousand square feet of pdrs and they
12:05 pm
have proposed zero square feet of pdrs in their plans nun the project is 94 percent renal mostly market rate and one alternative realty can this be called urban mixed use where are artists to go is to see are impossible to find in the eastern neighborhoods or the city not only for starving artists but those willing to pay market-rate as artist we need our studios for generating income and designers and collectors and thousands of members of the public wonder in and out of them during the open studios twice a year this is important for artists and also for the city san francisco is known as a city for the art one of the reasons i moved here and now very, very worried as city leaders are you willing to let the cultures part
12:06 pm
of city slip away i support the metals shed alternative i think you should as well. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> hi i'm sorry here on behalf of the peter i've lived in potrero hill since 197234 changes some for the better and some for the worst on the can company there was not much traffic to block and at mission and sierra street but the 53 has access to exist and the can companies is gone making room for more housing and more housing and missouri housing i grew up in manhattan that is a
12:07 pm
place in the country but in manhattan you could and still can get anywhere on the subway or bus it is unique san francisco sided a car culture of california where nearly everyone feels they have at right to park and drive anywhere we know now is not necessarily a good thing but that is a city lacking infrastructure i want to visit any granddaughters took two buses and two hours and get pretty close or drive any car and be there in 10 minutes on the other hand, if i need to get to south of market are downtown between 3 and 7 forget it 9 and 7th street their clogged the eastern neighborhoods plan i'm sure with the best intentions has saturated any neighborhoods are thousands of cars and people
12:08 pm
and the project is con serving the worse location for gridlock and illusion 16th street is difficult to in fact, but the dedicated bike lanes and thousands of residents not able to get through bottle bottleneck finding. >> good afternoon. i'm david a resident homeowner on potrero hill right in the middle of the action in fact, it seems we live in a construction zone with several major promotions more in the pipeline to be sure so the neighborhood feel is really been decongratulated somehow especially this project we're talking about here was
12:09 pm
approved open is basis of a outdated eir report i urge the supervisors to support the appeal that and lease modify the figures not to be correct with just these first projects through going if you drive did you notice 7th street street this is the major indigents the typography was a beautiful neighborhood not can't see the neighborhood from 7th street with daggett ohio look at the appeal thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm
12:10 pm
richard on potrero hill for 50 years in the 3 hundreds block of mississippi streets i'm an advocate for responsible development whether in my backyard or years, however, the eir is significantly flawed and have a - the city has ignored the concerns of the potrero hill all of this is described in detail on rachel manns field i realized the city needs nor housing but we don't have to put so much on the busy corner and look like a analyze wall the metal shed will be a better and responsible way to develop the site and achieve itself mature goals i ask your vote to support the appeal and overturn the appeal of that project thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> hi good afternoon, everybody i know your busy and
12:11 pm
looking at our phones can you pay attention this is crucial and i live in district 10 and watching huge, huge box these full of luxury condos and the espouse was that it wouldn't be feasible to preserve the pdrs i run a unfortunate only 6 thousand square feet of pdrs and 14 artists that have studios and events space the community can use as a gathering spot that we have international artists come and go with 6 thousand square feet we're looking at three hundred plus that will disappear where the artists are been in the warehouses on potrero hill and the mission and the eastern neighborhoods does talk about and our general plan and the arts components talks about preserving arts so why are you allowing one and 9 square feet
12:12 pm
that could be artist space name u i'm saying do some industrial space but a build out of 50 - so this whole melted shed is feasible economically feasible that has been dismissed by the planning department that has not deny their job and you need to stop looking at our foenlz and vote to support this appeal thank you >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors peter culture action network i want to make a contempt in 3 areas that are critical to why we support this appeal and it's important for i want to reiterate a simple math error the mood shed was studied indirectly when you study the
12:13 pm
feasibility you don't study the underlining costs it is their land cost simply how you did pencil out the math; right? so something that is simply done incorrectly that means it should be sent back to be restudied the feasibility as far as the eir this is a requirement to study the requirement; right? a requirement that eir so on that basis i'll ask you to send this back to restudy and get the right numbers secondly, this is a hearing nine hundred thousand square feet of pdr this is critical to protecting blue-collar jobs and one and 9 thousand with no replacement is really is going to have a huge gentrifying impact without the dispute i'll ask you to think about the alternative put forwards i've not looked at their numbers the
12:14 pm
55 thousand square feet they put forward a reasonable replacement is doable so that's a major build up to the blue-collar and the eastern neighborhoods eir is why did i think something we'll have to face been the left hand psa path and nanticipating - te threshold important murray over going over that level our traffic as you know as fallen to the third worst in the country speeds down do 21 percent. >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm jonathan a co-author we ran a arts center that serves
12:15 pm
all the art culture in the mission with a pdr and i'm here to talk about the loss of umu zones umu by defines is urban mixed use not an excuse to replace l housing on a property that was spent 5 years or more shifting to the changes in the eastern neighborhoods plan and mission area plan and crucial it is crucial for a vibrant and flavorful society to have a mixture ever uses they provide blue-collar jobs for people like myself it provides repair shops where will you get our car fixed if everybody is luxury housing it didn't ever come back this is the the subject properties to vote for the appeal and support the introduction of replacement
12:16 pm
pdr you know if you build above an industrial space leave the ground floor so blue-collar jobs support of exists communities and art uses the original thing that supports those two things i urge you, you to look at that another thing the grant association undertook it out of 3 nonprofit and art nonprofits are going to be losing their spaces they rely on the mixed income mixed use for officials o office space the segment is out of time and i urge you to support in appeal thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello supervisors my name
12:17 pm
is scott i'd like to appreciate jonathan's comments i left to move to the soma neighborhoods in 20023 a authorized unit space pdr is essential towards those things we got 6 months on the loss of this this is person and seeing it across the city this is not tendency was at with the umu it is clear the eir for eastern neighborhoods is where else we'd like you to you request the planning to rewrite this was the loss of resources so basically please work with the planning department you see this rubber stamped their supposed to deal with that and be tentative they represent one and 9 thousands pdrs square feet
12:18 pm
we're at a crisis - all of those are vibrant and necessary for multi culture city and natural habitat of arts this project does not solve the affordable housing but dramatically effects the pdrs resources i'm asking you to send this project back support the metal shed rehabilitation a more interesting thing this project did bring anything we feel the communities of san francisco support this and come up with a better appeal that's what we're stuck with after that thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello my name is avery ami i've accident on potrero hill for 34 years where i operated kline's
12:19 pm
deli and enjoyed being a part of this wonderful neighborhood and community i've watched with dismay and increasing concern as project by project of large-scale condo have's popped up in our neighborhood over the years save the hill and grow castro responsibility and put the energy and time to influencing our final designs of core band out of the character of the neighborhood i'm grateful for their efforts and feel strongly their voices our voices others people you're hearing here should be listened to and our objections and recommendations be given their full due please vote to uphold the appeal in the there are of people are live and have businesses give us time to
12:20 pm
effect this particular development thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is linking i've been living over potrero hill and raised two doss we all love san francisco, of course, my two doss young millennials to brooklyn but they want to come back i'm not against all of the housing that is built i am any kid's to come back and raise their families and be a part of san francisco the way i've been my objection to this particular building is the extreme size since or since there are so many others apartments they're being built and coming online shortly i actually in any gut feel there maybe a glut coming empty apartments and could happen
12:21 pm
the proposal for the use of the sheds is something that is very near and dear to my heart because of the you can i'm an old hippie recycle a recent velocity to new orleans that is on mosques they've deny beautiful work on old buildings and turned them into things that reflect their city and show their city has a cult nuclear to them i'm fearful for potrero hill we're becoming a neighborhood of waltz it is a wall and street this didn't make for good neighbors or neighborhoods so i strongly encourage everyone to please relook at the environmental statement and make that smaller and better. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is a ron i've
12:22 pm
lived on the home in potrero hill for many years is thing that is striking me odd listening to everyone in the information age we're dealing with out mooted information on a project will will not be right for the communities that i live in one the reasons he live there that was a mishmash of residential and commercial and strange mix of architecture i urge you to relook at this the plan that look at the hill will if i did perfectly with that particular neighborhood and without a new eir it seems absurd that anything can be approved by you the planning commission or anyone else it is not 2012 it is not 2008 so let's just look at it again hopefully we'll getting into the weeds of all that that's
12:23 pm
correct. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is shawn i'm the homeowners on potrero hill i'm also a member the homeowners grow potrero hill responsible i'm here to ask you to support the appeal of the environmental impact report all potrero hill residents are frustrated by the total onslaught of over development which is negatively impacting our quality of life around the hill today we feel deceived and willfully ignored i city officials and planning none the principled communities benefits of the eastern neighborhoods plan has been delivered to us awhile luxury residential construction mush ramon at the
12:24 pm
lightning speed has preceded the units anticipated by 2025 the visit to this the feared on april 2016 by the consulting unlawfully formulated a false land cost in order to disqualify the environmentally preferred alternative which our community supports they quoted a total land and $38 million a blatantly outrage lie the true cost was $12 million plus as personally states by the owner who is here today josh smith under penalty of perjury in his adoption to the supreme court of california and san francisco for case no. c.j. c -
12:25 pm
the report in234r5i9d by over 3 hundred percent of land use in summary the report the eir is inaccurate we appeal it and think those liars must be investigated and black listed from future proposals for development. >> here's the copy of disposition if you have any questions. >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> jackie cultural action network so ass i urge the board of supervisors to grant the appeal of the eir this massive, massive 3 hundreds and 95 units 3 and a half acre project this city has exceeded the
12:26 pm
development levels set in the eastern neighborhoods plan with this project and in doing so has failed to provide the promised community benefits and ios benefits include open space and the city has really failed in providing this infrastructure to support this massive growth that is a co-sponsor have an project will be and i urge to you to appeal the eir on the basis of the traffic congestion this will create all over potrero hill and multiple directs and aren't any viable mitigations that are mentioned in the presents eir the eir needs to be appealed this is not 10 years agoably 5 years ago it is 2016 there is not enough transit to
12:27 pm
support this project either the eir exclaims our neighborhood is trite rich but in fact, the neighborhood will be so over-burdened by this massive growth and not enough public transit to support this finally as others have said this community inspired lower density project is proposed with a large arts and maker component we call it so-called metal shed alternative you've heard and identified as environmentally aspire but then. >> you thank you, ma'am next item, please. >> your time is up. >> i'm thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is marie the
12:28 pm
quatro our motion no eviction you've heard all the stories and statistics why this needs to go back the for a second is i'm here before you because with this project and two others we've lost over 2 a hundred and 75 thousand square feet of pdr space what are people speedometer to see or do will this be a town ever white-collar you've not be able to have a plumber in town or have a app technicians as you get rid of the pdr the other thing this project should not have come to you it seems with the planning department that zoning goats
12:29 pm
changed willy-nilly i guess on a disclosi directing directing it is goiolo be housing - we need to adhere to whatever the eastern neighborhoods plan if this is the case this plan this current building plan than will be rejected that would be housing for frirndz it is pretty much pay to play the developers change the zoning and then get to build their high-rise please,
12:30 pm
please stop this thank you. >> thank you, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i just read someone else's comment is it okay if i have a brief comment. >> i'm sure feel free to submit it to us >> next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisor president london breed's and board members he speak to reverse the notification i'm an architect qualified to make evaluations of historic building the she'll sheds of rolling million dollars built by 1988 have landmarks to steal frames
12:31 pm
it stand today served as for man for the appreciation and allowed to make whatever machinery to a new facility when we died in so 20 his son took over the building from to the end the world war ii they made california an industrial state with san francisco at its center katherine hr e corrected the facts in previously reports that pushed this project along and proved a new significant and approved the integrity and in stark contract to the state landmarks the planning department has gone out of his way to facilitate the demolition of open plan soerg steel structures the landmarks preservation advisory changed the showcase
12:32 pm
square to inaccurate information on a consent calendar the eir continued to be doted with inadequacy as to the facts of buildings the dates of construction and their history their importance to not only san francisco rebirth in 1906 now the fifth largest in the nation if western not just a state the landmarks they certainly didn't come out of brick buildings. >> thank you very much any members that want to speak in support of appeal that second-class not had a chance to speak seeing none, public comment is closed. and now to the presentation from the paratransits to present their analysis for civil rights
12:33 pm
the eir you'll have up to 10 minutes. >> identifying issues related to their expertise the question you're considering today is whether is environmental impact reports for the project on 16th street was conducted accurately, adequately and in corners with the ceqa and chapter three 1 i emphasis it point as many of the light appellants issues are related to the project approvals not before this board today the project site in the showcase
12:34 pm
square potrero hill plan area one of four areas that comprise the eastern neighborhoods they have considered the potential impacts of zones for height and the eir as certified and the plans westbound adapted in 2008, when we have a program eir ceqa mandates that we focus think environmental impact on those tongs u topics that are peculiar and is impacts that are peculiar to the project and site that is we're for the to reconsider and reanalyze impacts that are attributable to this as envisioned in the plan the appellants are asking we violet those and revisit the analysis of impacts of the zebras like the pdrs loss and aesthetics as with all projects once we have
12:35 pm
firmed the project was consistent and the sites in the zone we completed our standards plan check list that allows us to assess whether their impacts beyond those identified in the eir usually not impacts but significant impacts were identified so we prepared a focused eir to address and mitigate them and consider alternatives we also had evidence regarding the historic resources that ceqa required considered in an eir but ultimately conducted overseeing were less than significance the eir was fully compliant with ceqa and i'm going to turn it over to chris thomas to discuss the contentious of the appeal. >> thank you sarah. >> good afternoon supervisor breed and board members chris staff sarah mentioned with the staff and the sfmta we're zabl to answer questions regarding the issues by the appeal.
12:36 pm
>> excuse me - >> to provide context for the appeal we'll briefly go over the project proementsdz for one acre project site in the northeast side of potrero hill between 16th street and 17th street is occupied two metal shed offices and parking lot those buildings are up to 47 needed in height and uses as a warehouse the certification of the eastern neighborhoods plan eir and adoption of the plan in 2008, the project was sdoernd from citywide to mixed use it involves the modular warehouse houses and the retention and repair and construction of two
12:37 pm
mixed use buildings with the sites to the height and zoning district in total provides three hundred and 90 units and commercial spaces and parking for three hundred and will 8 vehicles and biking and square feet of private and public open space as sarah mentioned the focused was elevated were the transportation and circulation and historic resources a public scoping meeting helped in march 2015 and followed by the draft eir in 2015 and the final eir certification in may 12th of this year that fully analyzed the 3 alternatives with the metal shed the final eir is significant and unavoidableable impacts to have intersections and determined less than significant impacts with with regards to the historic architecture resources with
12:38 pm
regards to the appeal there are a number of issues not grants for appeal under the administrative code which limits the grounds for appeals to whether that complies with ceqa and in the words of code adequate and sufficient as an informational document and correct and rlths the judgment and analysis of city and whether the planning commission certification findings are correct one of the assertions the ceqa and overriding consideration that rejected this on the feasibility to meet the ovens e objectives are flawed the over riding considerations are part of approval the projects large large project authorization and not within the scope what is appealable about the administrative code appeals of a large project authorization approval and it's
12:39 pm
associated ceqa finding might be made to the board of appeals they didn't appeal the los angeles not doing so the city didn't respond to any changes or reconsider the approval with that said, our written response includes a discussion of appellants point for informational purposes of the appellants concerns regarding the adequacy of eir that is subject inform our consideration many are relates to two primary issues whether or not the data and analysis contained in the eastern neighborhoods eir remains valid for the evaluation of the project, and, secondly, whether or not it complies with applicable height and scale and density appellants issues regarding the cumulative impacts under the eastern neighborhoods area plan derive from the concerns the current amount of growth has exceeded that was anticipated and analyzed in the eastern neighborhoods eir the appellants are incorrect on
12:40 pm
this issue the eastern neighborhoods has an problematic go range of development that could have occurred through with 2025 they have equal analysis for all the viral tops the preferred alternative was a option ever b and c that was somewhat less than option c the final eir contained the more development and growth data for the eastern neighborhoods and the showcase square potrero hill plan areas that data showed a development and growth amended by the eastern neighborhoods eir has not steetsdz for the eastern neighborhoods as a whole or showcase square and potrero hill measured by the loss of pdr space or the addition of total population increases that occurs with the changes
12:41 pm
finally specifically why the they were used for cumulative impacts to conclude ♪ first issue the environmental analysis properly relied on the impacts that are not project specific for tall ones e topics that very specific impacts with the historical circulation the focused eir reached the determination based on the data and determination by the eastern neighborhoods eir but upon specific studies applicable for the impacts considered moech to the second issue point of
12:42 pm
privilege to conclude the final eir with it a valid and not conflicting with the policy or regulations like the eir will results and other issues excuses in the appeal discussed i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and addresses our questions regarding those or other
12:43 pm
concerns thank you thank you, mr. thomas. >> supervisor peskin i'll defer to supervisor cowen who's district this is in. >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you supervisor cohen's colleagues bear with me this an, an important issue in potrero hill i'll start are start with the planning department first can you please discuss with how each the alternates were analyzed in the eir were selected each of alternatives how were they selected and analyzed. >> supervisors wade senior planning planning department
12:44 pm
staff the eirs in ceqa we're required to analyze the alternatives that reduce the significant impact so here the only significant impact was impacts two levels of serviceer automobile delay and we analyzing 3 a nonprofits alternative that is required at the ceqa and in ceqa we analyzed a reduced dent alternative that reduced some of the traffic impacts from the project so we look at various options for alternatives and we got it to a level traffic impacts will urban design reduced and the third the metal shed reuse alternated was talked about but is appellants and we molted that alternative to we used architects plans and
12:45 pm
came up with an additional that we identified as potentially feasible in the eir okay. thank you the appellants contend the alternatives analysis particular those that tale with the traffic accounts for those were unfairly burdened the alternatives in the eir making them less attractive how what traffic counts are assigned to when land use and the process what the process for each alternative. >> kres thomas planning department staff i believe this is in regards to the generation that occurs with pdr land use the eir use the worked the
12:46 pm
direction of guidelines and the land use a value was 18 trips thousand feet of pdrs square feet members of the public did point out that the nexus study deny done wore 40 wore one uses a lower value of 7 trims per square feet ever pdr space in response we've performed that analysis and the reluctance are not different that is largely due to the effect of the commercial and residential space allocated under the use alternative. >> so thank you i appreciate that that brings clarity i have a couple of questions on the historic reuses there is disagreement they weighed in on the eir whether the metal sheds qualities for presentation and this is actually something i'm
12:47 pm
particularly interested in can you talk about the differences in the conclusions and the comments and thoughts of the historic preservation commissi commission. >> thank you supervisor cowen i'm going to ask grej who was the preservation specialist involved in the review one more thing an mta person here. >> okay. perfect. >> thank you supervisor cowen can. >> please clarify if you mean discrepancy about the potential actual faeblth of reusing the industrial buildings for new construction well the first statement actually, i was getting at but you peeked any curiosity i was looking at for both. >> us, answer the second for the first question this property
12:48 pm
specifically was safeguard in the showcase square in 2011 that was adapted but is historic preservation commission at this point and at the time of the adoption the questions was brought up about the specific sheds on the property and consulting reports were to provide more information to the staff to allow them a more robust study than many other properties in the save to provide information about the history of site and the reports concluded and staff concurs the site is specific by not historic fabric remaining for the industrial building from the site to convey that significance the two part process we looked for determining the historic resources do they have significance and integrity so
12:49 pm
they're significant aechls making made to the prop in 1946 and 47 to convert from a field fabriction moving steal from the site it was purchased and reused as a glass warehouse and the property was i think there was proven $1.5 million of alterations to include the metal sheds to allow for the steel to move throughout the site and the alterations to the facade like covering up windows, changing and pitting in new door openings we feel change the appearances that they no longer look like they're part of a steel fabriction and shutting down the rail that extends though the
12:50 pm
site and others functions that are part of early history that issue was concluded by the preparedness commission and deemed the one brick warehouse to be significant and have integrity their remaining buildings were not we've recombamd that in the eir there was evidence submitted by part of scoping process we reexamined that issue and reviewed all reports to date including a consultant report provided by the hillside by katherine and considered the evidence and concluded the same result the hpc has agreed to in 2011. >> okay so how does ceqa deal with the difference of opinions amongst the expert. >> what ceqa says if there is a difference of opinion amongst
12:51 pm
the expert that is one of the eir reports reasons verse or versus and different kind of documents that's our reason for treating the issue in the eir even if that was not even though we've we were concluding based on our analysis not a significant impact so we followed what ceqa said and traded it in the context of the eir but when there was a difference of opinion you don't have to conclude that the opinion or that there is in the end a significant impact and is - the consideration goes to the lead agency expertise. >> so the consideration goes to the leads agree expertise what is the standard by which the standard must be based on.
12:52 pm
>> i'll hand that to mirena burns to talk about the ceqa law deputy city attorney mirena burns. the standard that ceqa requires you to look at when our gotten to the step of doing an eir is whether this is substantial evidence in the record to support the planning commission and now this board commission with regards to the experts even if constitutional evidence in the record to support the conclusion that as resource as long as substantial evidence in the record to support the planning commission conclusion that the property is not a holistic resource than the board what rely on that. >> okay thank you, ms. burns i have another question about the cumulative impacts
12:53 pm
naive experienced an unprecedented level of development can you walk us through the number of units that was crawford where we are in terms of approving the projects and the follow-up question the crux of the agreements they have we hit the threshold in the eastern neighborhoods eir. >> through the chair wade planning department first, i'm. >>. i'm sorry. >> can you repeat our name and position >> wade senior planner in the planning department. >> before we get to the data part of this i want to clarify something about what the eastern neighborhoods said about numbers and how we use those numbers it is first that is eastern neighborhoods analyzed the
12:54 pm
reasonable foreseeable growth through 2025 a profoundly using the best information at the time it was not an life without paroleable amount the intent that the decision makers understand the amount of growth from 2025 and the associated impacts with them so with that said, we're tracking the numbers and i'm going to turn it over to stephen pager with the planning department to talk about that but for ceqa purposes we're sierra club continuing to track we're adhering off the eir. >> good afternoon steve planning department staff walk you through a table if it is easier to put it on the overhead. >> put it on the overhead so everyone can see it thank you. >> okay.
12:55 pm
>> so steve speak to the number units in the assures and the eastern neighborhoods the data is of july 1st and the datsz reflects the projects relies on the eastern neighborhoods critical reference point and others land use and transportation in the potrero that do their own eir a question of this eir the eastern neighborhoods eir that's what we're referencing the eir for eastern neighborhoods summaries the development through 24 of two 24 for showcase square quietly potrero hill and the number of completed units the next row this is showcase square
12:56 pm
three hundred plus 21 percent of the autumn estimated in the eir and mroefg to showcase square not 34re9sdz that means entitled projects that or mayy not be under construction there is 13 hundred and 35 units that represents 42 percent that includes the project we're talking about today and under review projects that are still subject to entitlement by the planning commission and for the review one thousand bus units that's 33 units so the sum the total foreseeable we know today projects that submitted for our review through projects that are implemented 3 thousand that represents 36 percent of eir assumed that would happen 2025 anatomies conversation about
12:57 pm
those are meant to serve people on the ground only 21 percent of the units anticipated have been built given we're 50 percent through the eastern neighborhoods between 2008 and 20 with 25. >> how many projects to data have relied on the eastern neighborhoods eir i can't only the number of projects. >> i'm sorry supervisor cowen we're not prepared to respond on that specific point we can provide those numbers to the board we have been we'll have issued you know hazard to say probably for the entire eastern neighborhoods upward a hundred
12:58 pm
but not an accurate count work out looking at the records. >> i'm curious if we over turn this appeal and what will the process be. >> if we over turned the appeal what would your process be. >> i'm sorry to uphold the appeal. >> overturn the, sir certification all correct. >> we would act according to whatever the finding the board of supervisors made as to the specific deficiency the eir and take whatever steps would be necessary to bring the internal revenue back through certification and bring the project approvals back for reconsideration okay i'm going to more often and talk about the economic feasibility one of the things we've heard consistently this evening and in
12:59 pm
many neighborhoods merging and i'd like for you to discuss the planning department roll in reviewing the economic feasibility analysis provided by the consultant firm. >> this is the analysis on the alternatives that are analyzed. >> thank you so i'll start in responding this economic feasibility analysis was prepared by the project sponsor not at the behest of the planning department the feasibility was not the basis for decisions about the approvals of project or any of the alternatives under the planning commission made by the sponsor on their own report did the feasibility analysis and submitted to to us we conducted independent review done by the
1:00 pm
gentleman that is planning department staff with exercise expertise that reviewed it to assure it was completed according to the standard practice practice. >> what's the conclusions. >> i'll pass that along. >> jabbing with the citywide planning the conclusions of the memo by the consultant neither the two alternative studies for the lower density were economically feasible so that was the baseline findings of that memo. >> so neither were feasible. >> uh-huh. >> you're in agreement with that. >> yeah, so i looked at this memo in order to determine that was done using the standard professional practices that were reasonable that tracked with other reports and to see all the information was provided not a black box you could track. >> and met all the standard.
1:01 pm
>> and commissions but is jurisdictions around the bay area and on a route basis and yeah, so i was able to find it was done at a metal of professional standards and we've accepted this we've accepted this kind of information from sites and others consultants on a routed basis all right. thank you, my next question for the city attorney the economic feasibility analysis was flailed i think you heard the person believes that of flaltd and because it used the present land value instead of the lands use is there any legal stand. >> doorstop mirena burns through the president i think i want to address one point and more directly the pot about the land value the first point i want to address is that the
1:02 pm
alternatives feasibility studies way part of the planning commission decision making around approving the project the ceqa findings that are discussed were the ceqa approval for the project not the certification finding what is before this board a certification of the eir not the project approval so there is two different slightly different standards for looking at alternatives depend on where you're looking an analysis versus a reservation to a project for the process of approving the project. >> maybe i can rephrase are you able to talk about the ceqa appeal before the board and whether or not you doing the presents land value is the appropriate standard.
1:03 pm
>> the board is looking at the reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the projects under consideration like the project approval decision maker was the planning commission had enough options to look at it and the eir actually did not reject any of the four alternatives discussed as the 3 alternatives discussed rather as imagine feasible it looks like at the potential feasible this metal shed alternative the presentation the reduced density and the new alternative was required under ceqa those alternatives were rejected as infeasible through the approval process this is what the planning that is was a large project authorization so it should have been appealed to the board of appeals now getting to your question for informational
1:04 pm
purposes as i understand that the feasibility analysis look at in volley ball the land the land value as opposed to so the acquisition costs the sponsor paid in the site there is a somewhat case that came out that concerned steve jobs hours in palo alto where it was argued that steve jobs should have preserved his home in palo alto instead of demolishing it not infeasible to preserve this house it was steve jobs and had enough money to do that the court found not looking at the specifics of the particular pertaining to see whether or not they can afford to do what you want to do them but a reasonable investor and
1:05 pm
that case is not on point but similar as i understand the appellants are arguing we should be considering that the planning commission should consider its analysis the regular meetings are held on the second and fourth tuesday of each month. of this naeflt to reject this not the land use but the project sponsor paid for the land 10 years ago and if you analysis this to the steve jobs you should look at the land value that's what the person would do not circumstances of this project sponsor. >> that is thorough answer. >> so i think the best one i've gotten to that question. >> commissioner peskin. >> is that a published decision. >> i don't have the citation. >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you supervisor president london breed. >> tidal 0 move on to talk
1:06 pm
about the views i think that views everyone know there is beauty views in potrero hill and heard remarks in public comment i was hoping someone would detail what kwflgz a project to be an in fill appropriate proje project. >> 3 criteria for an in fill project it is defined and the 3 car criteria are it is surrounded by urging use the project is an employment for an employment's or commercial use and the third proximity to transit the 3 criteria. >> one more time a little bit
1:07 pm
louder we're trying to turn up our volume. >> surrounded by urban uses and has promised to transit and transit meets a standard and an employment's project or a residential project okay thank you question about height and bulk he know it is a touchy topic what's the height that was analyzed in the eir. >> 68 feet. >> that's standards all right. pdr and umu is a pretty important to discuss so could someone talk about the overall pdrs square footage is lost you heard in the remarks of the public empowers so what is the overall pdrs any discrepancy in that number you know the loss
1:08 pm
that was analyzed in the eastern neighborhoods eir what was anticipated and castro hill showcase square plan and how much loss have we've seen to data two part question. >> thank you supervisor cowen so another handy overhead with the pdrs loss same concept residence on the eastern neighborhoods eir and this is as of july 1st, 2016, the eir had at planning commission in their motion to civil right the eir accepted option c agency is amount of pdrs that was expected to be lost and in showcase square nine hundred and 91 plus square feet and in all the ooermgz 4 millions 9 hesitate plus square feet so almost a maintains in showcase square and 5 million
1:09 pm
overall and projects in showcase square lost one and 32 square feet of pdr that's 13 percent of the estimates and the projects that are allowed will remove another 23 thousand 22 more percentage that is the projects go about discussed and others 3 thousand square feet the for essential is 40 percent of what is expected in this area that is projects adrc pdrs hooper and like projects that take away and projects adrc. >> what's the rational hidden rezoning. >> we'll have to stack it back to the eastern neighborhoods adopted in 2008, after 10 years of conversation the basis of plan was to protect spiritual
1:10 pm
space pdr space spiritual from the 19 vcr mushy zone as office as of right and housing as of or the and allowed housing and cu and a ton of uses they're moving in the right direction to each other and we recognize the need to protect the blue-collar and is communities benefits and housing in concentrates areas for the childcare and others consolidated was than over a large area the eastern neighborhoods plan was that compromise half of the lands was zoned pdrs so much more reflective no office and housing was allowed and the other half was approved as user mixed use that allowed pdr and loud retail
1:11 pm
and a housing for the first time and generated into the housing units than required elsewhere in the city and generated the public benefits from the impacting impact fee we generated over 50 mental illness of revenue that would not have been gun generated we can go on and on but if you have other questions i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i'm sorry supervisor cowen i do want to add ward to the pdrs loss as steve mentions an issue that hark end to the eastern neighborhoods the eastern neighborhoods that pdr is a significant pack under 3 of the alternative as well as interesting the in project alternative that's if the area was not zoned projected to be a
1:12 pm
significant pdrs loss happening from a ceqa stand point that's an impact that was identified in the eastern neighborhoods eir we recognized this project in the environmental impact we recognized this tracked down to that art disclosed and analyzed significant impact so this is an issue that one the topics that it pertains to the area plan analyze rather than this project our sticking with the ear plan which is the area plan in general how many projects built in this area plan. >> how many plans have been built. >> maybe you can explain the difference between the projects. >> steve planning department staff again, i'm not we know exactly when projects or how many the sum totals.
1:13 pm
>> one 50 for all the eastern neighborhoods. >> so my colleagues said one and 50 overall in the eastern neighborhoods some are small like the daggett with the pro-preponderance to be built on showcase square let's monarch with the parks and a common theme in the comments can you talk about what park projects are contemplate and completed for the eastern neighborhoods. >> sure so department staff i'll admit i'm not the staff that is working on the day to day of the implementations but have a spreadsheet okay specific to open space the eastern neighborhoods plan has funded the daggett park that is directly across the street with a one acre to be opened in the next few weeks and funded the
1:14 pm
green project that is open space project and opportunity the rehabilitation the jackson park and funded bug projects like the fillmore e fulsome. >> sfgovtv please. thank you here's an overhead so a new park left-hand side brand new on fulsome and off the map the rehabilitation of south park currently underway projects that are funded along with other projects that are budgeted but waiting money to come in like the rehabilitation of gene friend playground and many projects skaufrtsz throughout the eastern neighborhoods. >> what is the planning code require when building new parks. >> what does it require in open space for a project like this. >> i believe 80 square feet
1:15 pm
there's reminders on the developments itself and then the fee money that goes towards open space to i maybe speaking but 80 square feet per units for open space if it is private and 54 if it is public. >> actually, if i can clarify those numbers that the gentleman is mentioning has to do with with the amount of open space by the project sponsor on the project site and it's there's a distinction between via assessable to a certain unit verse assessable to all of the opts out of the project the pubically assessable parks and open space that above and beyond the private. >> i'm glad you answered i don't know if you can quantify but what the project proposing
1:16 pm
to provide. >> i can ask the project sponsor if you don't know. >> it would be 50 thousand square feet total. >> this the last section has to do with with transit and traffic and a hot topic that is impressed but is mta staff come to this mike potrero hill is poorly provided with transit and particularly talk about the timing associated with the 16th street improvement project and we've been hearing a lot about this to come and . >> hello julia operation and switzerland manager anothers sfmta i'm very excited about the transit investment we've made within the last two years plus the work that is coming within
1:17 pm
the last two years as part of 10 percent service increase we've launched the 16th street which is a new line providing access to bart's and making connects both mission bay and there's the frequency on the it 2 fillmore and we have both extended the hours of townsend so we've made it an 18 hour services that used to end at the 7:00 p.m. and increased the trekcy from 20 to 15 minutes and also working on capita investments you've alluded to our board has all right approved transit on this lanes and others transit appropriate futures for 16th street which is essentially like a brt bus rapid transit we're working towards getting some of
1:18 pm
the low costs pieces of that on the ground by 2017 and the full project which includes a dedicated transit lane for potrero hill and the extension of the 22 fillmore that requires octavia boulevard work into mission bay by january of 2020 that is a fully funded project one that is all right completed pits primary entering that project benefits part of funding plan that comes from eastern neighborhoods money about thirty percent of it we also have been a 10 minute walk of the site. >> the connections to market
1:19 pm
street and chinatown i believe that is a transit rich area we are always working to make improvements and to that end we have been working over the last 6 months with community leaders in the dog patch in coastline and in anybody to try to identify additional service opportunities and we plan to have more public dialogue over the next year on this topic. >> all right. the appellant contends the traffic analysis is incompletes largely balls is it relies on summaries before the u usf hospital opposite side and not including an analysis of the impacts of the possible proposal or tear down of 280 any - are those items that the department
1:20 pm
analyzed. >> supervisor cowen wade with planning department staff the original analyze that we when this project started we took counts in 2012 that's when the project first filed applications we took counts in 2014 at the a select if you intersections between the draft eir and the responses we took counts addressed select intersection in 2015 and 8 to 10 months after the hospital opened in mission bay and our results of those counts the analysis had really not changed by the draft eir and is comments document in regards to 280 this is a high-level studies that we don't
1:21 pm
consider foreseeable through the ceqa process how we define the cumulative promotions not analysis any potential speculative impacts from that project. >> wow. okay i assume you didn't study the impacts of the proposed warriors stadium coming in. >> the cumulative analyze for the transportation study used growth assumptions that were in the eastern neighborhoods plan and then grown out through projections at the time, we did the study at the time in mission bay and proposal that the worries now sort of have an improved project if approved
1:22 pm
the so there were growth assumed at the sight and that factored into the traffic analyze the specific warriors project per say was not accounted in the traffic analysis but based on the analysis that away was done if the eir the times periods and the over lapsing of conclusion changed our conclusions in the eir. >> can you summarize our traffic analysis. >> yes. we studied 14 intersections 14 intersections. >> i don't mean to be difficult but list all 14. >> oh, man let's do this we have a graphic. >> a graphic. >> a map. >> okay. so we'll do it high-level our support team get the details so through the traffic analyze 14 intersections
1:23 pm
then what. >> so under the metric of the automobile dla detail looked at the existing conditions and project conditions and future cumulative conditions under the exists plus project we identified significant impacts as a result of the project at 3 intersections and under cumulative conditions we identified an impact at a fourth intersection when we have a significant impact we try to identify feasible mitigations we worked with sfmta staff on identifying those mitigation measures and two of the intersection we to identify the feasible mitigations and then we that was one of the tops we analyzed in transportation and looked at the impacts to people walking and
1:24 pm
bicycling and loading and construction and emergency assess. >> you looked at bicycling you heard there was a complrment that was recently hit by a car and the project is not even built not to isolate that project but many projects in the pipeline or not on line as well to be honest this is the one portion of the analysis that i have the most concern with just isn't jiving we have problem now we're not near build out to what we're projects to be and so this is concerning planning thank you for answering all any questions and mta i don't know if there is anything you want to add about traffic calming studies or analysis. >> i'd like to add the 16th street project is a complete
1:25 pm
streets project so in addition to transit safety and reliability investments on 16th street includes the investments with new traffic signals to make it easier to corresponding and short crossing distances and investment in bicycling other than 17th street including the new transit lanes but to be fair 16th street is though a significant amount of improvements is it so with only street and in the potrero hill showcase square planned area so when you go into this area now there is real congestion around the round about getting into mccoppin and getting on to 280 and you know the analysis is almost silent on the possible
1:26 pm
tearing down the freeway the impact will be so this is i'm going to pause and thank you for allowing me an opportunities to ask those questions and colleagues thank you for letting me rays those and supervisor peskin has a few issues i don't know if i've left anything urban turned thank you madam president. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you madam president and next slide, please supervisor cowen asked many of the questions i was curious that helps to reduce any questions by quite a bit of so one about an issue of fact
1:27 pm
your number was 3043. so one was just an issue that hasn't been resolved. they showed a
1:28 pm
total loss of pdr of 823,760 ft.2 which doesn't obviously hit the 991,463 ft.2 that was the preferred alternative in the eir and 2025 your number is about half of that so i just wanted to try to understand why your sets of numbers are different. there's is a great detail and project by project and it is in approval in unit counts and yours is just a male made a number and in so far as you include that attachment has there been some analysis as to whether or not their numbers are valid. i'm not saying that your numbers are approved i just want to resolve the issues with that.
1:29 pm
>>steve- can you just give us a few minutes to look at that i have not looked at this list but i go through with our data team and see where the discrepancies are with that. >> and then, maybe some high-level observations aboutthis project that maybe transcend this project i was on the board at the time that presided over the 2008, actually for many, many, years but in 2008 i was on the land use committee the that pres. breed serves in now and what i think the industrial m on m2 zoning allowed all sorts of things that would have fundamentally change that neighborhood and i think that
1:30 pm
correct analysis and in some ways what we are discussing here today through this project we are looking back and now getting onto a decade later they both happened actually much faster than any of us into the paid it so it raises some questions that are implicatedin this eir and the cir tears off the 2008 and it makes one raise questions which if we if we are at 3015 units we are 80 or past what we analyzed and we are about to hit that assuming for the sake of discussion and we are at 3043 we are darn close to what was analyzed for the
1:31 pm
planfrom that 2008 eir. what happens when we get our next appeal for a project. that will clearly take us past that 3080,what will mrs. jones say then? >>we are actually cognizant of this issue.we are analyzing projects that are within that projection total however, we are considering the issue of
1:32 pm
how essentially, how long can we continue to tear off the eastern neighborhoods eir. we are looking at- well one thing to understand about the residential development and the nonresidential development used in eir projections are how are they used? the way that they are used is to understand the increase in population and as a result an increase in the relative impacts that would result. so because our residential growth has happened very fast but non-residential growth has not been anywhere near what was projected. we are still well below the population topic- the population projection and the
1:33 pm
increased population so that is the first part of the answer and the second part of the answer is residential development does have different types of impactsthen nonresidential development so you can't say that for the topic area all were looking at is the extra bodies that are hanging around. the specific topics that you have to look at in regard to residential developments would have to do with services and utilities, parks, and wastewater's. they are those kind of issues. we have updated our analysis to recognize the changes that have occurred since 2008. we are working with the puc, we are working with the parks and recreation, there's been a lot of progress in the change in those areas and a lot of change
1:34 pm
in the service that is going on. we have updated that analysis and we have also updated the analysis for transportation. and so, we are incorporating new data into the analysis in order to reach the conclusions about the impacts. and you know, ultimately we are going to be able to conclude the impacts into the project that is done within the eastern neighborhood cir and at that point we will not continue to do what the community planning analysis for those projects >> when asked whether the warriors committee was going to affect at the warriors arena i
1:35 pm
don't want to put words in her mouth but it was something to the effect of it couldn't get worse. in the area plan in the 2008 eir as testimony of supervisor collins personal experience and all members of the board's personal experience if you go down at 430 in the afternoon, i should've stayed on 101 i was afraid of running late for a board meeting but i should've stayed on 101 and i would've been on time. all of those impacts should be warning signs to the city relative to the use of these information tool which is an eir for decision-makers to rely on and i just want to put that out there while you guys are planning for time and attempting to resolve the issue. the last thing - and
1:36 pm
supervisor cohen asked a lot of the questions already that i was going to ask is that there is a governess issue for the of 11 members of this boardand this plays over the metal shed alternative and with all due respect deputy city attorney burn i do think that these are not within the realm of supervisors to work on and not to agree or disagree on but will leave that for another the extent that staff in the eir includes an alternative and says it is feasible as part of the project approvals it is determined that it is infeasible because of this economic analysis and that was not part of the eirthat is
1:37 pm
properly approved before this board. i believe the findings are properly approved by this board but joe given her and i will argue over that for the next five or six years. but as to the fact that the planning commission made a determination that it was not economically feasible that in its face is a indication to me that your eir is flawed. if you can follow that logic. anyway, i will wait to hear about the factual dispute and that is the end of my questions. you can answer if you want miss jones. i mean, it wasn't a question it
1:38 pm
was a statement but if you want to comment that is fine because i have a feeling with the appellants in the line of work this will not be the last stop in inthe odyssey. >>concluding that any alternative was not preferable to the proposed project i think that the questions around the project sponsor's choice and not to pursue the metal shed alternative would best be post to the project sponsor but the economic feasibility although that has been raised by the appellants as the reason that the metal shed use alternative was rejected that was not the reason for the planning commission's findings. the
1:39 pm
planning commission's findings had to do with the ability for the project to meet the city's objectives and the metal shed use alternative would have substantially less housing and that was the primary basis for the planning committees objection to the alternative and i believe it did that. >>okay, seeing no other names on the roster we will have the real party and interest to present they are-you have up to 10 minutes. >>good evening pres. breed and supervisors. i am steve martel here on behalf of josh smith the project sponsor. the project is to build a building on 16th
1:40 pm
st. and on 17th st. it includes 23 three-bedroom units and two-bedroom units throughout the entitlement projects josh has engaged in the us projectand we have had copies of many letters of support. our on-site bmr units are an almost 10 you units for the city fund there is a landscape blocking the pedestrian alley for 16th and 17th streets that will be publicly accessible 24 seven. josh is making a $1 million donation to the friends
1:41 pm
of jack's playground. to support transient improvements as well as the sustainability fee and the childcare fee. and this will also be six pdr flex unit designed on 17th st. for bice partisan acres there's 25,000 acres for retail including one space big enough for grocery and pharmacy. it is a true mixed use is over 40,000 square-foot of public and private space. no established organizations such as the betrayer boosters neighborhood association opposes this project. in 2012,
1:42 pm
six to one. the commission rejected the metal shed use alternative at that time. currently this is being heard by the board of appeals for that reason the planning commission's project was final and not a subject of appeal what is before this board is the adequacy of the eir as an informational document. there is no doubt there is the final eir has over 500 analysis with seven technical reports and nothing was left out. the project eir focused on transportation and historic resources. it did propose significant transportation impacts and mitigation was not feasible. as the department
1:43 pm
discussed new analysis were performed in 2015 with the eir analysis. the metal sheds had been open air sheds and were heavily altered after 1946. based on the firm of planck- they determined that these were not adequate resources. the the cumulative loss of pdr in eastern neighborhoods as the planning department described you did notcome close to exceeding what the eir predict. in response to supervisor peskin's question what is required in the eir is set it
1:44 pm
beef feasible. after the eir was completed, we prepared an economic feasibility report and we obtained suffolk consulting for this eir. the planning commission rejected this on a number of bases. as ms. jones indicated the rejection of the alternatives was mainly based on the inability of the alternatives to meet the city's objectives and maximize housing projections on the sites of the eastern neighborhoods and also the traffic impacts the
1:45 pm
appellants here have failed to establish any procedural errors and have shown that the decision-makers will have moreanalysis after making a decision. rather than select an alternative that they favor. the founder proposed the height limits planned and that 67 foot height limit was mistakingly enacted. as the department explained infrastructure improvements are keeping ace with development. vega park is under construction across the street, mission bay and mariposa park will be open next month and the central free rate will dramatically a
1:46 pm
improve service onthe freeway. the patraio unit. as contemplated by the unit and the eastern neighbor hood eir is not stale.the effects of this growth was planned for and anticipated in the 2008 conclude the project eir is adequate and complete. the planning commission was fully comprised of the impacts when they made the decision. to date the planning department
1:47 pm
has not indicated write more analysis is needed with that city's decision-makers.noel lpa was filedand this is more than adequate for decision-makers on behalf of josh smith i urge you to reject this appeal. >>thank you and with that i will open that up for public comment for those members of the public who would like to speak in support of the project. you have up to two minutes each- per speaker please. >>hello my name is- i am an
1:48 pm
active community member the developer f has listened to the community a and their concerns through the project more than any developer that i've ever worked with.the project is a mixed-use project is completely code compliant. additionally, the project restores the brick office building on the corner of 17th st. and texas streetinto a very engaging retail space i especially like that within the 385 residential units there 42 on-site bmr units plus a $9.7 million payments used to build additional bmr housing. the project also builds a 30 foot wide
1:49 pm
promenade, this will provide the needed conductivity between 16th st. and 17th st. instead of the blank walls of the resting corrugated warehouse that currently exists. please support the projects as this is designed and give us the retail housing and project as this is plan. >>[timer dings] >>dear supervisors as long time resident of potrero hill i am writing you to reject the rejection of the eir. it is time to finally do something about this terribly crowded
1:50 pm
corner of potrero hill. this project is simply the best i have seen in 50 years in this community. here are the highlights 395 units of family housing with 146 units with two full bathrooms and over 200 two-bedroom housing 42 of the on site units art 55% ami approximately 10,000 ft.2 of secure family and children's outdoor play area of $1.97 million payment and a one million-dollar donation to
1:51 pm
friends of jackson park. this does rid the neighborhood of a slum area of corrugated metal that now take up the space in the neighborhood. it is for these very impressive reasons that i a have supported my neighbor is in thisdevelopment in our neighborhood. >>next speaker please. >>one of the most significant steps of this project happened in the early months of 2014. we looked out the windows as the warriors and giants of the mckenzie project and this project was made glamorous with video and other resources about discussions that they would do
1:52 pm
in the neighborhood. despite the amenities many of us felt overwhelmed about the range of information we were asked to take in. the developer of the core of an project took those comments to heart and set up a separate meeting for us to take a look at what he was planning to do. i still remember that day. it was raining cats and dogs on the outside neighborhood house and on the inside we are posting notes and poster boards on the elements of the project and we were asked to make our comments and attach them to the pertinent board in the process. that happened in 2014 and i asked for the people that came here
1:53 pm
to talk about this where were you then what we were doing the post it process. i think this would provide a relief from the blank in the potrero area neighborhood project. thank you. >>[timer dings] >>i live on potrero hill since 1974. i agree with the appellant and many things in the eastern neighborhoods planned however, this is not the project to make stand this is a good looking project with
1:54 pm
many benefits. this is been pretrade as a pdr site but it is not. there's no blacksmith there, there's the plumbers, currently it's used for storage. in fact, it will provide new community benefits when new pr spaceand there would be 25,000 ft.2 of retail space far more than we will see in the area. i own a pdr business. i want to see pdr around. i make my living from historic buildings. in my opinion this existing structure has no historic value at all. it is a rusted out old claptrap it is an eyesore. you should see the new development has so many nice elements it maintains a nice façade and there are
1:55 pm
numerous benefits i would hate to see these numerous community benefits fall by disapproving this eir. thank you. >>thank you next speaker please. >>hi we are currently tenants in this old core van warehouse because we were booted out of hi we are currently tenants in this old core van warehouse because we were booted out of pierce 74 and art project and work that we do on delancey street and this organization is good enough to rent to us and we are still in favor of tearing this down because we did look at the amount of below market rate housing because to us, delancey street is incredibly important because there's almost no place to move after you graduated delancey street coming from anywhere.
1:56 pm
this is a particularly frightening part of 16th st. and it's not safe to walk so we go around potrero hill to get there. this does incorporate an industrial field mixed with a warm, family-friendly thing that is safe and beautiful. we have known josh smith for a number of years and his word has always been good with everything that we have been involved with and we support this completely. thanks. >>thank you. welcome commissioner miguel. >>pres. breed and supervisors, obviously we let the speaker for the appellant set the tone, this is not why were here for
1:57 pm
the appeal of the eir, we are here for the eastern neighborhood plan. this is not the specific project. also, our two supervisors that are varies familiar with lan use have asked the right questions yes, these eastern neighborhoods planned has to be revisited, but to penalize one of the finest projects that have come along in the area until this point is the wrong way to go in my opinion. i was on the planning commission the time the eastern neighborhood project was going through don't blame me, i had to recuse myself because i live in the neighborhood. but myself and a few others on this side of the hall actually read eir's and i read this one. we took tracks
1:58 pm
of industries and warehousing and trucking and rezoned what, a quarter of the city probably? that has never been done before. that backlog was let loose and expectations have been exceeded. this is a code compliant family friendly mixed-use project. no extra height density or change of zoning. it is exactly what we wanted to happen in the eastern neighborhoods. revisited, i am with you. please however, let this project continue the way that it should. thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening supervisors my name is jim task and my partner and i own a property directly
1:59 pm
facing this proposed project on texas street and 17th st. and we also own a multiunit building on the adjacent block. we are veryfamiliar with the frequently occurring car break-ins the regular dumping of debris abandon furniture, garbage, and routine graffiti that occurs in this area that is overwhelmingly dark and unwelcoming to pedestrians this project is well designed, it is family welcoming, it offers living space that is solely needed in san francisco plus the 25,000 ft.2 of neighborhood-based retail that will be welcomed and i look forward to having it in this area. the attractive and
2:00 pm
fitting architecture which fits well under the neighborhoods industrial historic role has been well thought through. we welcome the activity of 24 hour life and the pride of a living neighborhood that this project will create. josh smith has formed a professional team and the developer has been extremely active in communicating unwelcoming feedback and recommendations as well as acting as a discipline in multiple neighborhood meetings, discussing both this project [timer project [timerdings] as well as other projects in the neighborhood. my partner and i support this project and urge you to also support this project. thank you. >>good evening my name is vanessa k now i am on the dogpatch board. the