Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 10, 2011 4:00am-4:30am PDT

4:00 am
congestion in downtown san francisco, which would increase travel time. implementation of the proposed project parking supply maximum would exacerbate the capacity utilization standard on muni's treasure island bus line. the project related construction activities would increase noise levels above existing ambient conditions. hopefully, you do not fall asleep during this period construction activities cannot expose them to ground born noise level or vibration. construction of the proposed project -- increases in traffic from the project would result in cumin the tiv noise increases. project related construction
4:01 am
activities in combination of other cumulative development would increase noise levels above the existing ambient conditions. those are just a few that i read. that is seven or eight out of over 30. identified and packs. the level of significance after litigation is still significant and unavoidable. that is not something that i would continue to subject residents of this city to. i made mention of this before as far as this is concerned. i am just going toquote from his letter. i have never made any secrets about my view that this project is over park.
4:02 am
the residential parking ratio, one parking space per dwelling unit is too high. it would make this an unsustainable subdivision. the ratio should match that of most these in neighborhoods in the district. one for every tv appeal districts. reducing residential parking below one space per unit has proven effective as a housing affordability strategy which lowers the cost per household willing to do without a private car. nonresidential parking, the nonresidential parking ratios proposed for the project are too high. using the standards from 151.1 is fair and consistent and reduce drive alone visitor and worker trips to and from the island. as it relates to the affordable housing, we are disappointed to see the percentage of below
4:03 am
market rate units from 30% to 25%. the housing need in san francisco is more than 60% below market rate. this project should stick to the 30% market rate. one strategy that should be explored is to reduce overhead costsof the total project cost presented in the discussion, 6% is for marketing and management. 4% for planning and entitlement. these line items can be reduced and in some cases, and eliminated. the windfall can be translated back into affordable housing. i realize that these are issues that can be raised that the board. these have not been resolved yet. they will not be before the night is over. although redevelopment is not completely over and may never
4:04 am
be, i realize that the project sponsor does feel somewhat uncomfortable or insecure about where the governor might be going with this issue. they prefer to go the ifd route. it does lessen the obligation of the developer as it relates to affordable housing in the city where we have clearly identified the need. i come from the working class. i understand the struggles of working families. we have untitled thousands of units of housing in san francisco over the last several years. many that labour have come out and been forced to endorse. just because we do entitle a development, it does not always end up in the labour force. some people do benefit from the
4:05 am
entitlements that they receive here. it is not always the labor force. at some point, the planning department needs to look at some of those projects that we have untitled. they are moving forward slowly. we have been titled eastern neighborhoods. there have been several individual projects that we have untitled on 10th and market. the list goes on. i have not seen any of those projects break ground. there will be plenty of jobs in place for the work force. they will be moved ahead. i hope to see these projects move ahead. sooner rather than later. from what i can remember, if we moved ahead on and lot of the projects, we have entitled to a lot of labor is being employed
4:06 am
now. that is the case. in my sandbox to day, i got a letter from supervisor daily that i want us to read into the record. people can say what they will about him. he was a real force in making sure that there was an equitable -- that equity was included in the issues in the development. the proposed treasure island. the board adopted a term sheet for treasure island. that call for 30%.
4:07 am
this was by the office of the board. this was an increase in density and development. only 2840 units of housing were contemplated for treasure island. in 2010, after significant deliberation with the office of housing, i supported an amendment term sheet that increase the unocal out to 8000 units, but maintained the 30% affordability. this is a proposal to undermine good faith negotiations that my office and the board of supervisors has had with the previous may oral administration and the project sponsors over the course of five years. this would reduce the affordable housing to 17%.
4:08 am
affordable housing has been a hot-button issue for many years. the project sponsor tried to suspend the renegging on our deal that they have not taken away yet. this has been historically focused on concentration and affordability. the high density of development comes with many unmitigated traffic, the static, noise and biological impacts. allowing the development to move for it means make sure -- making sure that the positive and outweighs the negative. and the community benefits means the at the negatives outweigh the positives.
4:09 am
i just wanted to put that in for the record. that gives me an overview of some of my views. i wanted to make view that commissioner antonini is celebrating his birthday with us. he is showing his dedication. we all studied the same facts. sometimes i go there and he goes here. we all try to work respectfully with each other. commissioner moore. >> i wanted to express my appreciation of you summarizing what some of the challenges are. this is in response to the phenomenal work that is going on. there is a chapter which i believe that they need to see in writing. that is best addressed on page
4:10 am
323 document review. at this time, it says content to be developed. i have approved numerous references to what the planning commission is supposed to do. this only applies to that day when the moon is in aquarius. this makes me feel like a scientist in the arctic who goes to sleep in one place at night and waking up 6 miles off the ball drifted away. a liquid so well, i do not know where we are. i have tried to piece together statements you have made. i cannot make sense out of it.
4:11 am
we are proving governments as well. not that we object to working harder. approving what is in front of me, i am unable to do that. >> thank you for the birthday greeting. i think that entitlement as a good thing if it is a deserving projects. we had a lot to the cost through some of their fees and process.
4:12 am
commissioners sugaya still has a comment. is on the tied up web site. this is appendix a2. i do have it on my little thing.
4:13 am
in terms of looking at this, if that were a redevelopment agency, we do not have any power. you have turned this on its head. this is an area plan. the city should retain jurisdiction. >> some folks do benefit from development and entitlements in this work force. >> if i made on the motion. i would like can to maketypo corrections as you move forward.
4:14 am
>> for some reason, my microphone has gone off. the motion is on the floor for adoption. for i atoms2a-h >> aye. aye >>. >> aye. >> no. >> the motion passed 4-3.
4:15 am
>> thank you. >> commissioners -- i guess the meeting is adjourned. are we adjourned? >> you are adjourned.
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am