Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 5, 2013 5:30pm-6:01pm PST

5:30 pm
our staff will work with you. >> i live in the tenderloin but a frequent visitor of the mission and particularly valencia street which is a wonderful place to go. in the past period of unemployment i volunteered at the marsh which was a wonderful experience. i don't know if anybody remembered. it's a marvelous institution. as we are learning it's a venue that is mostly quiet. isn't that something. i am opposed to this measure which is throughout more chaos to this neighborhood that has it's where people are comfortable, where they are happy and i can just imagine the chaos that might ensue the
5:31 pm
billboards coming soon. i'm against the values that i have personally brought me here to san francisco and made me love the city. i hope that you will go with the fans of the marsh and the neighborhood. thank you. >> i'm ready. it's on this computer. >> it's ready. my name is elizabeth. i have lived for decades in 94-1-10 and i live on hill street. what you have heard on the documents is that this building is not a good fit for our neighborhood. this development is based on lives
5:32 pm
and you should know about that. the first lie is that we are well served by transit. you can walk a half block for 2 feet to a munis line that doesn't serve well. according to the system wide on time performance which is less than 60 percent. the 49 and the j are all lower as you can see on this chart that comes from sf mta. all three of these lines are lower than the 60 percent. does anybody in this room think that less than 60 percent is a good on time rate? is it good for you? would it be a good rate for your children if they had to get to school? if is it a good
5:33 pm
rate for your ride to work? i don't think so. not a good rate. these dwoerps should put their money where they mouth is. i would say thank you for considering the neighborhood and considering the marsh and do not let them have residential parking. they say they want transit building, let them have it.a good evening supervisors. thank you for hearing our comments on the marsh. i'm a small business owner. i work in district 6 and live in district 8. i'm in
5:34 pm
three corners of san francisco. i came to the park and i'm staying for the marsh. i was thrilled that the marsh opened in 1988. we moved our business this and we found it was booming into a rich neighborhood. i followed the marsh from it's home to valencia to where it is now. really, that building now went from an empty storefront to the jazz club to this wonderful place where culture grows and blooms. so corporate memory. yes. we all had that, we all know what happens to the stores in the mission. is it progress to step on one of the places
5:35 pm
where the arts can thrive in each of our drebts in neighborhood theatres. i don't think. i have three things to say. first i'm not guess helping in san francisco. this seems sleazy and poor planned and second of all i'm a constitutional scholar and promote the general welfare. thank you very much. >> hello. i'm jenkins and i have been around the marsh and on various locations on valencia street which is an essential development when it was pretty rough going down there and walking home at night to a situation where this
5:36 pm
extreme over gentrification. i think it's a resource that we really want to preserve and protect and think about how this condominium oh project is threatening that and hill street and what that damage might do that you can't redo. like the cable cars that almost got taken away. we are always teetering on that edge about how to make that preservation. what does this project, what could it do to blend in and be more part of the neighborhood. notice how to marsh is with banners and not big -- signs
5:37 pm
and serve those kinds of goals or it's going to be detrimental and take away from what we are trying to accomplish here and as well as addressing the needs of the mission that are there as well as parking as being a huge concern. thank you very much. next speaker. is there any other members that wish to speak, please lineup otherwise we'll proceed at the end of this speaker. >> hello, i'm been a resident of the theatre since 1972. i had had the opportunity to perform at the marsh and scene -- seen the development of thousands of performers. when the board of supervisors, when is the board of supervisors
5:38 pm
going to realize that keeping the sanctity and quarter -- quiet for artist to perform and needed to work that as it's going on in cities and many have gone on to new york to taken san francisco with them to expand their experience. do you really want to be the one to have your signature go down in history to be on a document that contribute now of destroying this. thank you. >> hello. i live in the adjacent castro district area. i am fearful of the every epicrouching darkness that is a result of the these large
5:39 pm
buildings. i'm also very concerned about the character of the neighborhoods, the kind of places that are being built will invite people who come in quickly and abandon the neighborhood quickly and will not care for the quality of the area. i'm already concerned about the character of these buildings fitting in and what we think about our city and how we want to preserve what it is to us. so i would that the board of supervisors please consider these questions. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in public comment with regard to this topic? seeing none, let's go to the dmranttopic.
5:40 pm
>> good afternoon. i'm with the planning department. joining me today is my colleague, sarah jones, the environmental review officer and also rich sue krae who is a planner. the department provided you with two separate memos submitted by the appellant. after the concerns raised in these a. and the testimony we heard today we find the mitigated nag dak was adequate and appropriately issued. the building would not result in a significant effect on the environment with implementation of the identified mitigation
5:41 pm
measures. thereof we believe that the mitigated nag dak for the environment and other issues whether the project, scale or architectural style and we found that they would not. the department's response to the concerns raised are fully contained. in my time now i would like to cover 5 points. they relate to why the project would not have significant effect to the architectural style and significant plans and policies and why the project would not have impact in historic resources and why the project would not result in significant effects related to changes and circumstances and noise impacts. on the first
5:42 pm
point the appellant results that it would impact with many buildings in the area. mitigated nasdaq on characteristic and quality and land use and other topic. the mitigated nag dakt that it could be prominent in scale. however a new larger development is not in and of itself find the project would not substantially create visual quality. with regard to land use, the project would be consistent with the pattern of development that is supported by the valencia street which
5:43 pm
contains a range of building styles and heights that awe allow for larger buildings on the corner. a related claim by the appellant is that the mitigated nag dak does not address the consistency with the general plan. then properly analyzed the extent to which the project is with any applicable policy. adopt for the purpose of avoiding and mitigating an environmental effect the ceqa. the conflict to the extent that it would cause a significant effect. the degree that it has the potential to policy adopted to environmental effects have been considered in our analysis. as
5:44 pm
part of the department's review of the building review process, we determined the project would be consistent with the planning code and the general plan. the third point i would like to cover is the appellant raised the concern that the appellant would affect resources and this issue is a subject of multiple historic preservation commission hearings and was evaluated by department staff and an historic preservation memo and the memo is probation -- proximate to the historical resources. therefore the project would not have a
5:45 pm
significant effect on the architectural resources. the appellant asserts that it's mitigated circumstances be prepared only if substantial chance have occurred with with respect to projects that have major in the m d. such must involve the discovery of the substantially more severe in the environmental effects. the appellants have not provided the effects beyond those that were identified in the mitigated nag dak. the transit line and entrance changes in park circumstances. further ceqa couples to is not
5:46 pm
required. regarding noise, the appellant raises concerns about the noise analysis. the md is entirely adequate on these points and considers the impact on the existing noise on this project as well as the noise on the vicinity. it's an outdoor area where it receives the prescribes residential use. it incorporated noise levels that it would not exceed 45 decibels and be adequately ventilated. we have heard no evidence to
5:47 pm
dispute this. the speculation that enforcement is inadequate. the project was found to satisfy 24 standards. regarding noise generated by the project found it would not be significant. the project would comply with the noise ordinance which is by the department of public health and the hours of construction and the noise levels generated by the impact. it would be sufficient to ensure the project would not result the significant impact with regard to noise. we heard the testimony toed that there are great concerns about construction period noise effects on the marsh theatre. the mmd acknowledges the project would result in construction hearing noise. there would be perceptible
5:48 pm
noise. it's not to say there won't be any adverse environmental fkts. those would not be significant and short-term and intermittent and not rise to a level of significance. >> i would like to note too that during the discretionary review hearing the project sponsor agrees the further limit the noise. the noise from 7:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. to holidays. 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. monday through friday and no construction on sunday. the agreements that were established at that hearing. any remaining concerns
5:49 pm
regarding noise is beyond the ceqa review and significant impact. we also heard that during the testimony that the m and d was alleged to be superficial and riddle with errors, unstantdubstantiated and filled with flaws. there were a few errors that were identified, one was that dr is -- is that the end of my time. over all i include that this project is not affecting the environmental and no further review and it would not change the analysis and the conclusion that the department has
5:50 pm
reached. thank you. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the department for the presentation and work on this project. so one of the things that is alleged by the appellants is that there is an inaccurate description of the project by the department and i'm wonder ing what your response to that is and they specifically point to a number of things, like the number of unit in the project, the height of the project, basic information that you would think would be something that we would get right in analyzing the environmental impact of a project. >> elisa gibbs. planning department. one assertion was that the mmd's project's description was inaccurate with regard to the proposed number of units. the mmd identifies
5:51 pm
the proposed units at 16. in fact at the time we were conducting our environmental review, that is the number of units proposed. subsequent to our final knack dak being issued it was modified and now it's 12 units. in this case the number of units have been reduced the size and area of the building has been reduced as well. that does not render the mmd inadequate. the ceqa is that we analyze the worst case impact only means that any impact related to the intensity side of the building would be what we would describe in the nag dak. the other thing in the nag dak did not characterize the height of the building and we did an m d and identified it
5:52 pm
correctly at 55 feet and acknowledged there would be an additional 9 feet in height which gets you up to 64 feet. that is correct. >> one of the points with respect to height is this idea that the project is not correctly analyzed in terms of the actual height of the project. that what they say the project is not 75 feet which is close to 70 feet and the analysis is not adequate. >> my understanding is that the height of the building as stated at 70 notes is correct. we have a different agreement about the facts of the case. as the planning department measures height it is 64 feet when you take into account the 9 feet of rooftop features and
5:53 pm
we characterize the project in that regard. we are not aware of the reasons the appellant and we've measured in correspondence with the standing practice. >> what is required by ceqa? >> ceqa does not establish the method by the building height which must be measured. it's allowed the construction with review in the manner with how we approach the planning project and how we review information for purposes of environmental review as well as for purposes of reviewing process with performance of the planning code. >> i understand that, i'm wondering why you have to be so formal stick in your analysis
5:54 pm
why it has to be. >> i will refer to rich and he maybe able to answer your questions. >> the planning code provides for definition for the measurement of height. so the ceqa document uses that definition for the measurement of height. rooftop features such as rooftop pent houses allows for that measurement of height which is the height limit as part of the zone is for the sight. >> really one of the points that i was struck that i thought was an important issue was the issue of analyzing the changes and circumstances in this neighborhood. we are talking about a very important
5:55 pm
corridor valencia that have seen a lot of changes in the last couple of years. in fact a lot of changes even in the last year. the thing about this corridor is that if you don't, if you visit a week later, seems like there is something new happening on valencia and so in terms of environmental impact, i can see the point that it is significant that munis line was eliminated. it is significant that you have lower than desired the on time performance by the lines that are there. we know that service has been cut by the mta we have seen a lot of new businesses on
5:56 pm
the corridor and we have seen things like park let's but they also have an environmental impact. so it seems to me that there is a very valid point that there are a lot of changes that have taken place that require more in depth review in terms of environmental impact. >> elisa gibson. i can respond to that. ceqa establishes points that leads to other ceqa review after certain mitigations have been adopted and those circumstances change the revision to ceqa review document due to the identification of new significant impacts that were not previously identified or
5:57 pm
substantially more severe impacts to the ones that were identified or perhaps that mitigation measures that were identified in the nag dak are no longer feasible. so here with the information that has been provided regarding changes in circumstances, none of those conditions could rise to the level of further ceqa review. so with regard to the munis line being eliminated limb and the characterization of the quality. the mmd with regards to transit is the area transit rich or not. the context in which the mmd identified transit services in the area was to describe the
5:58 pm
transit conditions toond demonstrate the anticipated trips that would be generated by the project would be via the transit mode could be adequately accommodated on transit that is within the area. so the fact that one lane is mitigated. there is other transit in the area and some find the on time performance of the transit providers is not acceptable but this last that is a separate matter for how we analyze ceqa. >> at some point don't luke at the cumulative impacts of these additional projects. at what point does that come into play. we've had that discussion here that where a transit first city which we are very proud of and
5:59 pm
development after development is happening that there is no connection between individual developments making sure their contributions making sure we are transit first. >> i would like to address your question broadly with regard to how we look at with regard to cumulative impacts. yes, this area has experienced a great deal of change. this is change that was anticipated when the area was evaluated and identified for the eastern neighborhood in rezoning man that this program was under way and the development that has occurred within the area is consistent with the development that was anticipated as part of that area plan and that
6:00 pm
programmatic,e. ir. this is a small project. and then we consider when this project can be considered as a significant cumulative impact with regard to points we are discussing and even if there were, there is no evidence that the project's contribution to a potential cumulative impact can be xhultively considerable. >> i know a lot of people who have been involved in eastern neighborhoods in that whole plus 7-year process and i have yet to have someone say that exactly. i think there is a number of folks