tv [untitled] August 15, 2013 1:00pm-1:31pm PDT
>> commissioners it will place you under our regular calendar. item 4 was pulled off the calendar and will be considered at this time >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with the planning staff. before i i present an authorization for 1 hundred and 43 thousand office space. the planning section is legitimate as part of the requests of planning code 321 and 22. it's occupied. commissioners on june 28th the zoning commissioner determined that the office space was eligible for the office space. the legitimatetion allows the
building to be put under the planning code that now permits the coding. there's 2.2 million office space and this request allocates about 6.4 office space. the planning market staff approves this pursuant to planning code sections. and it will represent a allocation. authorizing the requested office will allow the office space to a condition it's economic activities. it will generate $1.6 million in fees and lastly it is consistent with the area plan and the
general plan. commissioners i'd like to submit to you as part of the record the following e-mail on the case reports for office allocations. this message was omitted from the submission and i apologize for that. this concludes my presentation. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon president's fong and members of the commission i'm jim rubin representing a couple of matters. i ask if i could confer this was pulled off the consent calendar and i'd like to address that and the staff has talked about what the request is
>> would you - >> yeah, that's fine. thank you. are you asking to have a private meeting with her >> i was asking her to talk before me so i could respond to the concerns i don't know what the concerns are. >> we'll open up for public comment first and a okay opening it up to public comment. ms. tester, i presume. >> i went through my requests but i'll speak about the letter you got. there is a problem with case reports come at the last minute
and you have no opportunity for the members of the public to respond to them. i sent the letter that was offered by to staff about too weeks ago saying i don't understand how an office allocation can be a one week item because your rules are rules for the public such as a they are rules for the planning commission. a two week report enables the public to understand what the staff report says and respond to it like i did for 350 mission street. my letter is still valid and the facts of this case they're right it was placed out in the zoning administrator.
people that have advanced information and understand the staff report is tied to something that's already been going on are apprised of that and not surprised. when an office allocation just shows up on the calendar at the last minute which is friday afternoon some of us actually will respond because we don't have the ability to download 6 hundred of pages and that's the number of pages we had to download this week >> is there any additional public comment? okay public comment is closed. commissioners >> i'll move to approve. >> commissioner. >> yeah. i wanted to ask staff
i guess. question: i don't understand there are some projects as ms. herera brought this seems straightforward i don't understand what's the existing use it's been around since 1998 what is the line we draw from the notification between some projects and other projects being two weeks projects >> what the staff understands is the policy we work with the planning commission leadership in reviewing the advanced calendar to determine what cases the planning commission would like to see. this case nor the following
case, i believe it's 333 brandon was one of the cases that was identified you want to see two weeks in advance >> it's a judgment call we make every time we review the calendar if it's a large case we send it to you but this is an office allocation and we didn't feel it was necessary. >> i think so some degree the environmental involvement. some of those eastern neighborhoods are already compliant by their nature and it's less complex >> i think that's correct. >> commissioner. >> i didn't just a quick question. i guess it would be to mr. rubin. but i think they're moving to
market street >> they've coupled 3 buildings i'm aware of south of marketing yes, they bought 75 market and some of their operations will move there. >> do they plan on retaining all the space there. >> i don't know. >> if there's a way to determine what is a large and a small project i would say that this project from any i see does not fall into the category of large and since the work of judgment work by staff will be ultimately be the zoning administrator i believe this particular case does not warrant a two week notification. there might not other reasons why people want this but
ultimately it's the type of use for the zoning administrator and is that a correct assessment >> i was going to add that the letter has a thirty day notification period so there's already been a notification and process involved. >> i will second a motion on the floor. >> commissioners there is another motion and a second to approve with conditions (calling names) so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> commissioners that places you under item 12 are the transit effectiveness on the draft environmental impact report. please note that the written comments will be taken until
environmental report the transit effectiveness project. the public comment has been extended for three weeks. in some respects this is not a complex project. however, t p is a citywide project. for environmental review we've tried to group as many things together in order to provide logical evidence. >> on item 12. >> could i have the screen there? >> to that end i want to spend a few minutes and speak briefly
about the alternates and you can easily follow this. this is to highlight the environmental project. as a general rule of thumb the projects present impacts on the environment. this is in keeping with this practice so in a few minutes keep in mind it has some benefits like a single occupancy vehicles. the eir provides an evaluation of the mtas policy framework to support the strategy planned goals. it includes service proposals
including reroutes and routes elimination. and capita that is needed. and transit traffic time proposals or t prps. the sfmta has applied the t p.s. to design the t ps. for example, in pedestrian and traffic circles in lanes. one example of which is the pilot on church street. the corridors identified for t prp treatments are those that carry the majority of ridership in the city. the eir may include the program analysis such as a the service policy framework. it's appropriate for the
proposals for which designed details has not been developed as shown on the map. the corridors in black are the ones for which the mta has designed specific designs and the gray ones are needing more processes pr the their involvin others processes. so the culminate effects are known those program level components have gone through research. to the extent that specific information is known to a specific environmental topic for both components it's been addressed in the initial study
in its insure it whether or not the details have been developed first year for example, we understand the tools needed to take care of this. for each the 8 promotions the mta has identified a moderate proposal and the expanded proposals with respect to travel first year by looking at those the sfvt will have neglect to get it approved. they may choose different alternates for example, the motor alternates for the church and the other project.
as shown the two alternates have different things like loading and this is for pedestrian and air quality and noise. the expanded part has an impact and with respect to culminate parking one quarter is effected under each alternate. i want to speak about the two elements for which interest has been expressed. stop consolidation is one of the elements within the tool kit to reduce traffic time in deciding which stops to eliminate or relocate the factors is considered like greater slopes amongst other things. traffic time it reduced with
fewer stops, however, stop consolidation would result in he people having to work further but who won't be consider a sequa impact. the c p would result in fewer parking in order to prioritize transit lanes. the first step in evaluating the parking lot and this demonstration depends upon where they are. for example, in the downtown off street parking facilities impacts many locations so in downtown there would be a much bigger parking loss. the second step or question in determining the significant impacts if the deficit exists
would create hazardous conditions or delays for pedestrians and bicycle. however, due to parking removal we would have a parking shortage but the shortfall is only considered substantial in a couple of locations. however, the purpose of the prp is to improve service for sin occupancy vehicles. the t p wouldn't have parking impacts. however, in consideration of the land use development in some corridors where parking lot would be significant there would
be a significant and unavailable parking impact. in closings i have a few reminders for the record. staff is not here to answer comments today comments will be contributed in the writing document which will be respond to and make revisions. a court reporter is present as well as interpreters. there's no difference to the writing comments all comments will be treated the same way and those will be provided for your consideration before the certification of the financial eir. this is not a hearing to consider the proceeding of the
process and they will be before the board of directors. comments today should be directed for the accuracy and adequacy of the draft eir. the sfmta will address those. commentsors should speak slowly and clearly so the creditor can produce an accurate record and you should be addressing your name clearly. after hearing comments from the general public we'll take any comments by the drafting commission. this enhance on january 11th and will continue until september a period of three weeks extension.
this concludes the presentation on this matter. i represent request the public hearing be opened. thank you >> opening it up for public comment (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners. mark third generation san franciscan. there are a few positive elements to the project one is the line that be with expanded for 5 shopping centers but the effectiveness is that the pedestrians it it for them or
the buses themselves. it seems like it will speed up the buses case in the let's take the 2819th avenue bus line one is for you - currently you walk 3 blocks and wait for a bus. under the t p you have to walk an additional long block then while waiting on 19th after the closest stop the 28 passes you bye so how will that effect getting to your destination quicker. furthermore, eliminating stops doesn't suspend service that
much. let's say you have 10 pedestrians at one stop and another stop that's going to be eliminated. at one stop it takes time for those 20 people to board the bus under the t e p you have the same people board at one stop. it basically takes the same amount of time. i grant you it does take a little bit more time but is that time savings worth eliminating the stop for passengers who have to walk a bloke or two. for those who need did you have the 28 inlimited then you villaraigosa a bull about. it blocks traffic and that will
further block traffic and result in dlaifg the next bus for the traffic back up. in closings you are hernd the elderly the very people you're trying to serve. does not element stops, in fact, your make it harder just to say the bus is moving slightly faster then you can say it got from one - >> sir this hearing is on the draft environmental impact not the service changes. those comments are better suited to be provided to the sfavt board. this is about the adequacy of the board and we'd appreciate it
if you limit our comments to that effect. thank you >> i'm herbert i'm a native san franciscan and also an i am paled stakeholder of mta. sadly this hearing addresses the transit effectiveness project and doesn't include human impact. no physician or professional has rectified this impact upon pedestrians. it is basically flawed because it does talk about bus transportation while the transportation agency claims it's adding new vehicles it's retiring vehicles at the same time and pollution exists while
the ridership grows without services increasing. if the mta can spend more money on others facilities why can't it allocate funds for a net increase for transportation vehicles why must it make the residents surf from discontinued bus runs. it will be less services to the neighborhood. the heart and soul of san franciscans. the elderly and frail will have to walk longer distances to the bus stops. notablely in the chronically terminally ill. while this plan is sound it's humanly a hardship for many.
electric muni buses. please send this project and those formulated back to the board to come up with a better transportation plan and please include human impact. this is throwing the most vulnerable under the wheels. i want to include this in the record >> you can leave it on the podium. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is alex i live here on jackson.
i'm part of a group of people who are concerned about the proposed impact of terminateing the quality of life on our riders and second from the congestion we believe will result from more car uncle. i'd like to provided a little bit of background from our neighborhood. my colleagues will then talk about the environmental concerns we have about this impact. to understand our neighborhood you have to realize we're primarily a residential community not a designation community and therefore the majority of our ridership is in the morning and afternoon from downtown into our area.
we have 20 to 25 percent of our riders of the age of 65 or older and finally, we're a very hilly community. the number 3 bus goes through the spine of our community and it goes downtown if it's terminated what do we do then we have number 2 but in our neighborhood it's 7 blocks away and somewhere between 1 hundred and two hundred feet in elevation change. we can use the 22 or 34 or 33 which runs perpendicular. however, to take that requires additional walking and a bus
ride and a requires a transfer. what is the result for our riders especially the elderly atkins and the young. we believe it to be a serious inconvenience associated with changing buses especially at night. will the exciting 3 riders continue to be muni riders if you terminate their service. thank you >> thank you. >> i'm barbara and i live on jackson street and i'm following up with alex on say environmental impact of the plan. the goals set out to enhance accessibility and railways traffic time and improve reliability b will not be achieved. we estimate that half of the passengers