Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 5, 2013 2:00am-2:31am PDT

2:00 am
from that building so that the historic resources at the verde club are protected and that they also be required to develop a mitigated, mitigation plan for the work in and near the club to guarantee the club is not damaged or destroyed as a result of the construction. >> this is a dinosaur going up in the neighborhood. can i turn on the overhead
2:01 am
projecter please? >> this is what our neighborhood looks like from 16th street all the way down to 24th on the other side of potrero, and it is general hospital. and this is the character of our building, these are the commercial buildings that we have in our area. it is completely out of character with this neighborhood completely. and it is your job to protect our entire neighborhood, including potrero hill. when, last meeting you had said that all of the neighbors got a notice on the eastern neighborhoods and i was at that hearing two years ago and none of the people in the neighborhood got notice on eastern neighborhoods. i was in this room, and all of them were developers. and i opposed completely this project and it really needs to be compatible with our neighborhood and i want you to think about that when you are doing this.
2:02 am
>> i live at 3550 utah street and a little more about the neighbor character, here is a picture. and we don't know how to get the little picture up on it. there we go. and basically that is the neighborhood that we are living in, and it has got two and three story buildings. and also, what is kind of interesting, is the maripsa gardens that are the low income housing development right next to it which is filled with trees and green space in there. and much lower, lower heights, it is, it seems like a much more comfortable way to have folks live, on potrero avenue over here, they are set back, way back and there is a big fence all around the whole building so that nobody can get in and do something that they should not be doing, potrero
2:03 am
avenue is not actually the safest place that you could live on. i was looking at something across the street at 511 potrero avenue and somebody has put on their door. this is a door that is right against the street and somebody has said, please keep this door away from my home it is not a public rest room and don't use it as such. that is also the neighborhood that we are moving into. and there are residential guidelines, and so, toward the north part of the building, it just does not look to me like the things are set back wide enough or up high enough. >> and all of these folks here these are going to be the rooms that are facing the sidewalk that is a very popular sidewalk, day and night. sometimes. and things are going on that should not be going on. >> i also want to quickly say something about green space, and it is just sort of bothers me that i would really like to
2:04 am
see more green space in our neighborhoods and putting open space, the green space, the open space on the top of the roof, is really kind of bothers me, because first of all this is supposed to be 58 feet and yet you are adding a whole level of people living on the top if you are saying that they could have the green outdoor space. and so, it seems to me that if there is a 58 seat level that is supposed to reach outdoor space should not be included in it, and also, rear yard here. and on the first floor and it is just the space. and there is no, or nothing that you can really plant there unless it is in a box and to be sure that you have the right amount of space we add these rectangles and that is really not the most wonderful way of arranging things for the people to live in. and so that is kind of my
2:05 am
problem. >> could she have one more minute? >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> i am told to remind you that the plans are not signed by an architect and we have a discretionary review in the neighborhoods and the man who identified himself as the designer today previously appeared to two community meetings as a licensed architect and the project sponsor, has represented himself as anger. and here in lies part of the problems that we have with the conducting agency designing this project. and i am quoting from salina bendic's review for the officer of the department 1979, an 8 story building in a block of ten story apartment buildings would probably not have a significant effect while the
2:06 am
first 8 story apartment house on a block of the single family house and duplexes could initiate a significant change in the character of a residential neighborhood. and i also would like to point out that the rendering. oh, and it was just the space up. >> yes. >> and the rendering show an 18 percent grade, right here. and in to the parking structure. and whereas today they said that there is no excavation, how could you have an 18 percent grade into something without the excavation into the massive cells, and first the first rendering that i showed you to, this street appeared flat and it has a 7 percent grade. and okay. now to my presentation. the department created standards and language that would fund it to be less than a significant impact on the existing on it or the control ordinance, or said don lewis this is not typical, and this
2:07 am
is exceptionally, deepening weathered and too weak. the neighborhood needs protection from. the services and the homeless program and 63 low income families who reside at the gardens have been excluded from all environmental notifications in the department. in their omission, they have been denied the rights to participate in the process, for 480 potrero avenue, environmental justice could not be more relevant than the withholding of the information from the protected class related to the immediate environment and potential risk to their health. >> by adopting the negative it will have the net effect of
2:08 am
further disenfranchising the most vulnerable members of our community, the potential for the effects caused by the direct separation of the no income individuals by being given the same rights and information as everyone else in the neighborhood would be a significant effect. and this warrantty, eir, in the review is mandatory, so that they could be included in that process, to protect the community of the environmental report should be required. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> hello. >> i work on potrero. and i want to speak about proper notice, the proper notice was not given to the impacted community. and specifically the residents of the maripsa gardens, the
2:09 am
first meeting saying that the gardens was confusing and made it clear to us and those attending that the information had been estimated, thank you. and des i mated by word of mouth and they were asking about amenities as if they thought that they were living there. will there be cable and so the first meeting was a pr campaign and people had received different information and in regards to the authorization for a large project, asking for exceptions, for drawing exposure and open space and rear yard, the maoelting was not substantive and the 64 units were not sent the proper notification in spanish so the purpose of the meeting was not to address the impact of the community. our neighborhood groups had organized a meeting with the sia consulting and at that meeting the issues were presented but not resolved. >> the negative report had been submitted prior to the meetings and we have to rely on the sunshine ordinance for the
2:10 am
information. and it became clear to us that the purpose was unfair and daunting for the neighbors, the first meeting had to be reschedule because there was no notice on the. the minimum noticing was done and the missing were the letters from the downtown high school and the residents of the gardens. and for the notice for the large project approval and the minimum noticing was done. missing were, letter to the downtown high school. and the letters to the individual residents of mariposa gardens and the homeless program on 18th and potrero, and the notice of the august 8th meeting was not posted on the site. the notice of the july 18th meeting was reposted instead of the august 8th meeting and other notifications that were
2:11 am
provided are horizon unlimited and the youth center. and that is it. >> it is important to include them because the construction will be an obstacle to the foot traffic and the highway 101 to the streets to the east which is access from the west by way of 18th and mariposa. and ce 2 a and the eir environmental impact review are important to maintain the requirement for all residents, and we are requesting that they follow the law and rules instead of subveteringing the process. thank you. >> >> good afternoon, i'm diane wringle., the owner across the street and i just have a lot of concerns, starting with notification, which has not
2:12 am
been complete. in an entire group of people have not been noticed, signage today, and states that the meeting three weeks ago and it does not list today's date. isn't that a requirement that the community be informed? >> the noise report in your file, i spoke with the man, and he said that i am a contractor, no special education and just experience, that is acceptable as a sound report for you? >> mr. lewis, did not care about our children at downtown high school and i put 6 children through the public school system and how flip of him to say that does not matter that they were not notified. and i am incensed by that. who was protecting the children if it is not for us. and you. the property across the street was not a vacant lot. i lived and counted cars that were between 50 and 70 cars illegally parked there.
2:13 am
every single day. and now, those cars are in the neighborhood, and now, it is finally a vacant lot and so if it is a vacant lot how can you ask for exemptions. there are units in this poorly executed design that have no window access, except to interior light wells. and that is against your requirements. and they are asking for an exemption to the main floor. why should they be granted any exemptions if they are starting with a clean slate? they state that there has been no problem with water run off. there is a letter in your file from the neighbor who has been plagued with water problems from this lot for years and has never been addressed. and in reference to the rock when i specifically asked, the developer what are you going to do about the surpentinexter rock, he said that we will deal with it when we see it. that is not an answer, wi want
2:14 am
some preliminary legitimate testing submitted in a complete eir. the shadows, there is a letter that states that the shadow report does not pass how come when it was redone it was passing? what is the problem there? there needs to be more, more, please, looking at this. and they say that there are no specimen trees and there are two trees. how can you miss two specimen trees? and it is amazing how many problems have been with this development with the community, and we never asked for a postponement and it is only the developer and the planning commission and we want the planning commission to follow the letter of the law, please we imp lore you to request a complete and terminal impact report.
2:15 am
>> i am an american italian and i have two pass ports to prove it but i am not here to talk about iethnicity and i am here to talk about the jobs that this project will provide and the commitment that this sponsor has made towards local 22. and for local 22, for the apprentices and the journey men and the men and women who build the buildings here in san francisco.
2:16 am
we need the building and we need to put the people to work and people need to have a place to work and this fits both of the bills. thank you. >> i know the code well and it needs to be posted and you should talk to the zoning administrator on it and no one can take down a sign, especially if the data is changed and it comes back and the new data is not on it and it is a continuing requirement, absolutely in the planning codes. and secondly, and in the
2:17 am
environmental document has to accurately describe the existing site and have the professional people do the reports for it. everything that you have been hearing today is that it is not correct. and i don't care, whether the eastern neighborhoods, and it does not think that it is important, for the parking garages, or the parking lots, it is there. and it has to be described as the existing condition, and it is a starting point for any environmental review and that is enough. and in addition to the non-professional people that seem to have done the reports for the ear, pardon me, the non-ear to be stricken and my last point is that it really goes to the project itself. and this is the biggest change in this area of the mission, bar none. and mariposa gardens is the community, and it is in the nature of this area, and it has been low income housing, the
2:18 am
gardens, homeless prenatal project and on the other side, the hillside they are a small houses but this area has been low scale housing. and low rent housing. >> potrero avenue has been that forever. and the mission is going way up scale because of the tech community being welcomed into the city. and you have no condition that says, you have to, who are you going to serve at this site? what are you? what kind of smoke is being blown about the people that are going to live here? a typical person that will live here is a person who earns $200,000 a year. and everyone, markets or condos to that level. and i have language that i have created, for it should be an imposition on all housing projects that no later than six months, that the project
2:19 am
sponsor should report to the designating planning staff representative and the sales price, or in shall rentals for each unit. such reporting shall continue every six months until all units are sold or rented. if you don't do this, you are blindfolding yourself, no one here lives in the mission, i know where all of you live, no one, closest person to the mission, is two people, who live a mile and a half away. >> this is low income city tradition and city. and and is there any additional public comment. >> the public comment is closed. and could we have a staff comment on the noticing issue.
2:20 am
and you are in the planning department. and we compliant and the compliance of the notice requirements that have been substantially met and bringing up the notification of a high school that was just barely within a quarter of a mile, and that section of the guidelines says that the notification of the schools are required if the new construction is going to have hazardous submissions or waste and there is no reason to believe that this project is going to effect a school. and we did a deck just for the hazardous materials impact and that is with that serpent tonight underneath the site and because there could be hydrocarbons. and they are talking about mariposa gardens was not notified. >> it does not require it to the adjacent tenants, we have
2:21 am
put in information saying that the project that the pmd has been able to be heard before, you know the ex-case and so you know we believe that you know, the notice has been met. and okay. thank you. >> and i would like to speak to the posting requirement that the notice, or the hearing was properly posted for our hearing date, if it is continued and it continued to a specific date, we generally do not repost. and the same way we do not renotice if it is continued to a new date. >> and then the second question with respect to the debate whether if the site was properly described as vacant or a parking lot. can someone comment on that please? >> we ran the analysis and no structures were on the lot, i read into the record on july 18th that it was used illegally
2:22 am
in the parking lot and it was the planning exemption in. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i raise two issues at the previous hearing one had to do with vibrations in the potential impact of the excavation, on the club which is a historic resource. >> and i received the reply from the planning department and i believe that if the, the geo tech report which has been referred to, and there are two references in here which i would like clarified and one is that the neighborhood is climbing that the geo tech report which was analyzed and used in the analysis was submitted in 2004, for a different, smaller project. and i think that the planning department now hands and is, in receipt of a more updated geo tech report and i think that the project sponsor has also submitted that as correct.
2:23 am
>> and that is correct. >> the 2000 attack was eight years old and relied on the 5 years residential housing and updated the tech and the recommendations are more or less the same. >> thank you. >> and i am satisfied with that. with the other part of my two-part issue was the potential impact of construction of the building and the associated potential impacts from the construction activity itself. >> and in that, was addressed by miss jones in a separate e-mail and to me, and i have a question not specifically about that, which will come next, but in general, in her reply to me, it says in the case of 480 potrero, which relies on the impact analysis eastern neighborhoods and the eir and the circumstance is not an impact that may not have been known and at the time that the
2:24 am
analysis. and so, my understanding of that approach or reply is to say that because the problematic eir for the eastern neighborhoods did notify this kind of potential impact. and therefore, this pmd does not have to recognize that,; is that correct?? >> it was a problematic eir and they did not find that the specific concerns, compared to what we did for the transbay terminal where we will have the high-rises built to other older buildings, and the heights and the character of the buildings that were proposed in the heights in the eastern neighborhood did not bring us to a significant potentially significant impact. we always do rely on the geo
2:25 am
technical reports and the ddi requirements for structural. and for during construction, and therefore, we did not find that we needed a mitigation measure further. any further mitigation measures. >> i think that is what she means that the eir with the eastern neighborhoods does not identify the construction or the damage as a significant impact requiring a mitigation. >> that is correct. and this happens all over the city, we do have construction in-fill, for at least adjacent to the historic buildings and non-historic buildings, and we have to apply the same geo technical >> but this is not a geo technical issue. >> it is a building code issue, >> then why does, why does she dismiss two examples that i gave of the environmental impact reports which specifically identify the construction impacts to adjacent historic resources as
2:26 am
not being amrikible. >> the two documents that you cited were for puc projects and the first one was a well, project, and by needing adjacent, they actually they were on site, the historic resources were on the same site as the project. and in certain cases when we do like if we are rehab a building, we sometimes add the improvement measures to ensure that the integrity will not be affected and it was the same site as the golden gate national cemetery as well as the other site. >> the sfduc water system? >> yes, those are both unique and they don't, necessarily require dbi. type of buildings codes
2:27 am
regulations. and those are you know, outside of the san francisco and they are pretty unique situations. >> and i am quite familiar, since my firm wrote both of those impacts, and mitigations. but i question whether or not the eir and sequa actually says then an impact can't happen across a property line. the fact that the verde club is on another property should make absolutely no difference as to whether or not there might be a potential impact caused by construction activities on the adjacent lot and it is a simple mitigation and there are three or four mitigations that have always been proposed in these kinds of cases including, instruction to the construction company that creates, and the plan and the mitigation plan and not a monitoring plan and the plan for the workers, and
2:28 am
telling them that there is identified historic resource next door, and to be careful about how they go about their business and second to be no storage or activists adjacent to that building. that construction equipment to be careful when they are operating the equipment there. and that there be an architectural ahead of at time. and to establish a establish a base line condition. and it is a reference point. and if there are any kinds of damage that occur to that building during construction and there would be something that people would say that do you have photographs and descriptions, during the construction activity something happened and this crack opened up and therefore we have a problem. those are some of the things that could be done. >> now, and those were all and they have all been contained in the previous eirs as far as i know and that is why i am
2:29 am
questioning this one, and we don't need to get into a discussion that was just a statement but thank you. >> based on that. i still think that and it is flawed and if we can't address it through the pmd i would like to make that a continue on the project if it is approved. >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you. and i have read at length the memo from staff, that addresses a lot of the concerns about the verde club and construction impacts and we received a lot of comments and testimony from tread well and rolo and some of the best firms in the shoring issues and structural integrity and it made some suggestions to mitigate the possible impacts and you know, they have said
2:30 am
that they don't want the soldier piles to be driven in, they have to be pilot holes that will be drilled in and then the shoring elements will be put into those rather than the pounded into the surface and, they also suggest that soil conditions be checked, because there is an assumption of the soil conditions, based upon what they have checked so far, but as a construction goes on, it is verified that that in fact is the case. and commissioner sugaya points out the other thing that which would be to continue to make sure to monitor the effects that might have occurred to the neighboring structure and this is no different than a lot of other places that was brought up that there is a lot of buildings built and a lot of greater depth into soils that are also problematic, in the transbay areas and i have seen the same techniques