Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 9, 2013 8:30am-9:01am PST

8:30 am
appropriately issued. the building would not result in a significant effect on the environment with implementation of the identified mitigation 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
8:31 am
significant effects related to changes and circumstances and noise impacts. on the first 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
8:32 am
consistent with the pattern of development that is supported by the valencia street which 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
8:33 am
potential to policy adopted to environmental effects have been considered in our analysis. as 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
8:34 am
-- proximate to the historical resources. therefore the project would not have a 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
8:35 am
park circumstances. further ceqa couples to is not 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.
8:36 am
we have heard no evidence to 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.
8:37 am
the mmd acknowledges the project would result in construction hearing noise. there would be perceptible 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
8:38 am
no construction on sunday. the agreements that were established at that hearing. any remaining concerns 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
8:39 am
environmental and no further review and it would not change the analysis and the conclusion that the department has 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
8:40 am
description was inaccurate with regard to the proposed number of units. the mmd identifies 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
8:41 am
nag dak did not characterize the height of the building and we did an m d and identified it 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
8:42 am
the planning department measures height it is 64 feet when you take into account the 9 feet of rooftop features and 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
8:43 am
wondering why you have to be so formal stick in your analysis 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
8:44 am
changes and circumstances in this neighborhood. we are talking about a very important 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
8:45 am
seen a lot of new businesses on 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
8:46 am
the revision to ceqa review document due to the identification of new significant impacts that were not previously identified or 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
8:47 am
context in which the mmd identified transit services in the area was to describe the 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.
8:48 am
we've had that discussion here that where a transit first city which we are very proud of and 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
8:49 am
that area plan and that 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
8:50 am
exactly. i think there is a number of folks that have been surprised. i haven't heard anyone claim that the level of development was expected so that's a first one in terms of what i hear. i'm also really worried about the analysis around noise with respect to the marsh. can you talk a little bit more about that because you are talking about a very cultural institution that is central to the identity of this neighborhood and not just valencia corridor but the entire mission neighborhood. i'm really worried about the, i don't know that enough
8:51 am
attention has been given or certainly not articulated to the very legitimate concerns that were raised by the various testimony around that. >> for this, i would like to thank urn thinks over to tonya singer from the planning department. >> the m and d analyze different noise and impact wrap to the marsh. we looked at how construction noise would affect the marsh theatre. it's regulated by the noise ordinance with very specific terms regarding when construction is permitted. as
8:52 am
part of to discretionary review. the construction would be allows from 7 to 6 and 7 to one on saturday. the mr. -- m and d doesn't analyze -- but does in the impact. in this case cop -- construction is to last about 18 months and it's only when construction is really noisy. so the rest of the time construction noise is limited to interior project modifications. >> i know there are a number of mitigations that have been proposed by the marsh and i'm wondering whether planning has looked at those and considered
8:53 am
those whether you are incorporating many of those into mitigations that you are recommending. >> good afternoon, sarah jones. environmental review. the noise issues and analyzed under ceqa are mitigated. they were raised in the context of the discretionary review hearing but there were further conditions applied through that process and rich dra can address that.
8:54 am
>> yes. as part of the discretionary review of the planning commission. planning commission ultimatelly struck a balance between limiting the hours from 7:00 a.m.-6 :00 p.m. it would allow construction. they did strike a balance in terms of looking at limiting it from 5:00 or preventing activity on the weekends and ultimately decided to strike a compromise and recognizing that limiting the hours further might extend the construction timeframe. >> okay. thank you. colleagues
8:55 am
any further questions to the planning department. seeing none, let's hear from the presentation by the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, evening, supervisors, ruben and rose, attorneys for the project response ofrment i would like to make a brief comment on the ceqa document which would any significant effects on the environment. i would like to reiterate for a standard of review for an appeal. to be successful an appellant must state there is a substantial evidence the project could have a serious environmental effect. substantial means facts looking
8:56 am
for reasonable assumption predicated on facts and expert opinions supported by facts. other things like general arguments ub supported speculation of potential harm aren't enough to meet this standard. here no substantial evidence has been provided that the negative declaration is inadequate. so this st has not been met. second, the nag dak was the project of a thorough review of staff. in fact it was upheld by the planning commission following by the previous appeal following in 2010, in which many of the issues were raised and on the basis of substantial evidence property concluts -- concludes
8:57 am
that it could not affect the faevenlth -- affect. it's scale and design and the public views of the vista and area. historic resources and parking and loading and many items. it specifically impact to noise in the community which we have heard about this evening. both during construction and after completion would be less than significant for purposes of ceqa. this analysis applies to the entire neighborhood including the adjacent marsh theatre. this is a document analyzed that raises the concerns of the appellant. for these reasons request ask this be denied. thank you. i'm
8:58 am
available for any questions. >> any questions for the colleagues? >> thank you. can you talk about the a little bit of the process that you reached out to the community and addressed some of the environmental issues that have been raised whether it's issues around traffic, transportation, noise? >> supervisor campos, for the project sponsor as well. this project has been going on for 7 years. there certainly has been an enormous amount of outreach and dialogue that is continuing on. there is a hearing at the board of appeals. the project has shrunk, it has modified in response to concerns by the neighbors and we believe this project is fully ready to be finalized and built. >> i understand that and i
8:59 am
appreciate that but i'm wondering if you can walk me through for issues of mitigating some of the noise issues that have been raised. can you walk me through that process. what did you do? >> yes, there have been a number of meetings with the liberty hill neighbors throughout the process of design as part of the discretionary review process, the project sponsor agreed to limit construction hours and to ensure proper sound proofing would be done to the building to mitigate any noise impacts. in addition, there are a number of construction efforts taken on this project that will limit the sound on the marsh reaching the building and things like following a sound consultant
9:00 am
and will be implementing a 6-inch separation. current plywood and wall will be replaced with an eight inch 8-inch wall and current commercial space in the restaurant is going to be replaced with hallways and dead space that is going to insulate the marsh from further annoys impact. following in the dr there will be noise that will affect the project. that will be removed. that will eliminate concerns as well. effort have been under taken to respond to noise concerns. >> a couple questions, what do you response to the proposed mitigation measures that the marsh has presented?