Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

tv   [untitled]    November 11, 2013 2:30pm-3:01pm PST

2:30 pm
consistent violation. so i'm just wanting to understand the clarity on how there is a joint effort in terms of the p.d. in providing information so we have accurate data from both departments. >> sounds like a question to the definite heads to the general manager or chief? >> we are happy to keep records of any citations issued. i would like to make one point. there was some discussion earlier about how sit lie isn't enforced. it's represented the way it would be 3 years ago and it's more to move a contact and move along versus criminalizing
2:31 pm
the conduct. that's the same way that i would fore see the officers applying this. the question was raised about stop and frisk, if being in the park is a code violation, the officers can move to contact without any sort of profiling as if there would be probable cause. refer them to services. i don't see them as being a citation machine and to some officers to move in the park. with that said. we are happy to track whatever you want us to track and use our tracking measure for race and gender make-up. >> just for clairity, i want to let you know members of the
2:32 pm
station they are citing for sit lie and the actual consequences for citations. we have a considerable amount of hours dealing with this problem but no follow through after the citations are issued and that is problem that i have ultimately and i appreciate all the work that the department is doing to try to deal with this. we need to provide more support around enforcement which includes consequences for citations which doesn't happen. thank you. >> okay. any further discussion, madam clerk, let's call the role. >> the clerk: supervise yee, aye, breed no, avalos no, chiu aye, campos no, cohen aye,
2:33 pm
ferrel aye, supervisor kim, no. supervisor mar, no, supervisor tang, aye, wiener aye. 6 ayes 5 no. >> this ordinance is passed. ask for order in the chamber please. thank you. colleagues we are now the behind on our agenda on a number of items. what i would like to go to is our special commendation and 2, 3:00 p.m. orders. >> thank you for reminding me that we had other items on the
2:34 pm
agenda. district 6 has the as smallest parks in the city. when we have the ability to create open spaces in the district. it's something that we really would like to celebrate. i want to bring up two individuals who are really instrumental in allowing us to make these parks what they are. please comp. e -- come up. this is a long commendation. this is a neighborhood that was previously gated up and we have
2:35 pm
many members of our rincon star as i understand was behind this idea. he's worked at emerald funds for 15 years. he's served on the board of the west bay. i want to recognize this board for long-term committed to the city. they know this is not their only project. they are very committed to this neighborhood. they understand the public benefits are good for their business as well as their residents and their neighbors. as i mentioned before, the district has a small acreage of parks. 1.4
2:36 pm
acres per park. members of the rin conhill was concerned that there wasn't park space available for many of the residents that are slowly moving into this neighborhood. emerald park was designed by the emerald fund to address this need and to benefit the entire area. the emerald park donated. to ensure this park was fully accessible. when we required the parks to maintain and be accessible and well maintained. this conservation easement is basically
2:37 pm
permanent. i'm showing that emerald park will remain open forever. i want thank our two local residents and developers and providing this amenity to our neighborhood and appreciate this. thank you. >> i want to echo what supervisor kim what you guys really epitomize what your effort and community is about and the need for our open space is incredibly extreme and found a way that is majorly generous. i know we understand that and from my perspective i want to thank you as well. with that, if you would like to say a few words, i would love to hear r -- from you. >> i will say the city has been good to us and it's been a previous to be able to give
2:38 pm
back something to this city and make it better. and this community where we both li -- live and work does need a lot of parks and it center for the community. thank you very much. >> second points. it's marvelous to be in the position to give back something. we've had a great, i have worked here for 35 years and it's been a marvelous place to work, thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, supervisor kim, colleagues, we have 2, 3:00 p.m. special orders. i know
2:39 pm
this will be a long one. madam clerk can you call the items. to valencia. >> the clerk: item 130896:valencia street] hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the planning commission's approval of a final mitigated negative declaration case no. 2007.1457ee adopted and issued on september 30, 2010, for the proposed demolition of an existing one-story commercial building and construction of a five-story mixed-use building within the valencia street nct neighborhood commercial transitt zoning district and a 55-x height and bulk district on property located at 1050 valencia street, assessor's block no. 3617, lot no. 008. district 88 appellant; stephen m. williams on behalf of the liberty hill neighborhood associationn filed september 12, 20133. clerk of the boardd >> the clerk: sf 2512341234 item 130897:[affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd12341234 item 130897:[affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd12341234 item 130898:[reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street]
2:40 pm
motion reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd 1234 item 130899:declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd 10/22/2013; continued12341234 >> our consideration involves the analysis and completeness of as per usual -- we give those time to speak. we hear from the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes for presenting it's analysis and we'll hear from the real party in interest and members of the public that support the issuance of the negative declaration for up to two 2 minutes and the final speaker will have 3 minutes for rebuttal. let me ask the district supervises or if you have any preliminary comments. >> thank you mr. president, i want to thank members of the community who have come out for this ceqa appeal. this is a project that has been pending
2:41 pm
for quite a few years before any of us were in office that's how long this project has pending. i think the environmental issue went out in 2007.f i'm not mistaken. it is a project in the even neighborhood zoning area on valencia street. i want to just note that i look forward to the presentation and the testimony of the public and i think it's important for the folks to keep very much in mind that this is an appeal under ceqa, the environmental quality act. the declaration was issued about 2 years ago and 1 year ago there
2:42 pm
was a discretionary review hearing at the planning commission that the dr is currently, that it did occur about a year ago. and so this is a ceqa appeal. and i think it's important that we are focusing on the ceqa issue. with that, i look forward to discussions today. >> thank you. let me ask the appellants if you can come up to the microphone. you have 10 minutes for the initial presentation. if you have multiple speakers, you can divide it up as you see fit. m are williams. >> thank you, my name is steven williams presenting the a little liberty hill
2:43 pm
association represents the businesses in the liberty hill historic association to advocation the quality of life in the area, character and historic nature of the area. the association through this appeal challenges the accuracy and sufficiency of the final mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed project at 1050 valencia street. to support the appeal, the association retained a well-known ceqa expert richard grassity of grassity environmental consulting and he received and commenting on the declaration of the board and provided that written testimony to the board with our initial pl appeal that is exhibit 2, his resume is attached to exhibit 3 of our appeal and he's here to explain his testimony and his conclusion
2:44 pm
that he reached after the review of the nasdaq that it is inadequate. appellants are asking the board grant the association appeal and require that the negative declaration be krenthd and amended or that an eir be prepared for this project. as set north our appeal, the negative declaration is a superficial document, riddle with errors, omissions which rely on virtually nothing but unsupported conclusions from the beginning. the planning department and the developer have failed to adequately describe. even now in the documents placed on this board, the department gets the setting wrong, gets the project wrong.
2:45 pm
so that's how they defended the particular project. our first issue was the failure to describe the project. the basic fundamental requirement of the ceqa is not met is the project is wrong. the project in the new documents by the department is wrong. that's a starting point for every environmental review. we need an accurate consistent project subscription. here it's simply objectively incorrect. the department setting wrong, the height of the existing building is wrong. the height of the proposed project not fully disclosed. the building is not 55 feet tall. it's going to be 70 feet tall. it shows that 70-foot building is viewed from
2:46 pm
the historic district. the environmental reveal that the close site is critical to the declaration itself. one of the most important of the overriding assumption to the document is the unsupported and undefined conclusion that the project is transit rich and because the area is considered transit rich, therefore building a multiuse unit with no parking either for residents for commercial tenants and loading for impact on transportation and parking. that term transit rich has no meaning, nor a definition. more importantly what the environmental document fails to mention is during the tendey of
2:47 pm
this application, things changed radically in the district. the munis line was removed from service. that's not mentioned. another aspect of this issue is that valencia street itself is specifically referred to and defined in the transportation element of the general plan. it's classified not as a transit rich street but as a principal bicycle artery. this is at odds with the zoning that was put on this particular area by the even neighborhoods plan as the neighborhood commercial transit district. in fact the collector street is specifically defined as a relative low capacity street which serves a local
2:48 pm
distribution agency with major arteries. so based on that identification, no issues are discussed in the transportation element or environmental documents. that is a crucial failure. none of the information is disclosed or analyzed in the declaration. this is an in depth and accurate analysis of the existing factual situation and the potential impacts of the project. the environmental document gets the project description wrong. the department's reaction in a late filed supplemental document is still no impacts. it gets the heights of the buildings wrong. the reaction is oh well, we got it wrong, but there is no impact. failures to disclose and discuss major changes to the presumption of the transit
2:49 pm
rich areas and the reaction is oh well, that doesn't matter, there are other transit option three or 4 blocks away. if that is true, any place in the city is transit rich. the appellants mention today today borat -- board that this does matter. this mission information crucial facts in issue such as the true stated transit areas in the area, classic of valencia street under the general plan, how it fits into the the city's transportation plan. it shows the fundamental miss judging of the promise and the area and the result is a fatal flaw in this environmental document. it must be corrected or amended. the department also feels to fully address the historic district and the visual impacts on the historic district from this
2:50 pm
proposed project. first of all as i talked about there is not a single conceptual rendering anywhere in the document which would show the impact and in fact the rooftop mechanicals and elevator e pent houses are not shown in any drawing or any concept. with a project like this, a project that's being inserted in the historic district across the street on values gentleman and -- valencia and history k area, there is a sign in front of the subject property which announces the historic district and certain what is propose such a development is sensitivity, compatibility and color and materials might
2:51 pm
matter. the discussion in the environmental document is wrongful, there is no analysis of discussion. it says these buildings exist someplace and therefore the impacts will be the same as they are in any other urban area. with the right approach, this project could be completely contemporary design, could fit in, but those issues are not discussed. they are not fully vetted in the environment. this is whether they have discussed the matter. they have admitted they got the discussion wrong and the none of the issues have been discussed. there seems to be such a confidence that this board will not grant a ceqa
2:52 pm
appeal given the statewide amendment. there is such a confidence that they don't bother to get it right, don't bother to get the neighborhood right, don't bother to discuss or analyze the issues in the environmental document. that's the goal of the department. is an is a full discussion of those issues and you do not have that in front of you today. i would like to bring up to mic grassity that provides the forms in writing. thank the board for your attention and we hope to get the board's support today. >> thank you very much, mr. will -- williams. >> i have to remind members of the public that we prohibit
2:53 pm
applause or members of option so we can move further. i'm going acknowledge supervisor wiener. unfortunately your time is up. you do not have time unless there are questions asked of you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i have questions for mr. williams. i'm looking at your october 14th submissions that your negative should beset aside and we should have an environmental report for this project? >> just an equally alternative would be a correction, an amendment of the existing negative declaration. 92 >> in terms of a high level of review because you have
2:54 pm
asserted some factual errors but there are other i think items that you state are significant with enough impacts that it would trigger any ir, in other words not a mistake in the declaration but what you claim to be a significant impact. am i right? >> we have not gone that much in this direction that challenge this document. our challenge is that you can't know the impacts if you haven't done the analysis. you can't have done the analysis if you haven't gotten the facts straight. the facts aren't straight here. >> now, one thing that you indicated that you dispute this is a transit rich area. is that true? >> yes. in terms of transit
2:55 pm
area you pointed at 26 valencia love it or not it was not the most frequent line but that line was eliminated a while back. in terms of other transit access in the area i heard what some of the oh opponents of the project made that there is little or remote transit area here. there are two bus lines that go down mission street with a fair amount of frequency. so putting even you have the church 3 blocks away, two bart station that are 4 blocks away, but then you have these mission puss lines -- bus lines that are 1 block away, how is that not accessible to transit. >> i'm not saying it's not accessible to transit. i'm
2:56 pm
saying this document fails to mention that the valencia line was canceled during the append sea of this action. that's a fatal flaw. >> you say there is no parking somehow there is inadequate transit. something you don't point out in your filings that there is mission lines 1 block way. >> the department makes that point saying the mission street is 1 block away. >> that's correct, right? >> that is krek, -- correct. what does transit mean? it's an e amorphous vague term. >> you are not saying it's somehow unaccessible to transit a lot of appeal would --
2:57 pm
people could consider it 1 block away. >> i don't think it's considered transit rich. >> if you are living in a triangle where you are 1 block way from the 24 line and 2 blocks from castro station you are not at the location. >> that's not point. i think you know that. the point is the line on the street was canceled depending on the application and yet the environmental document makes no mention of that fact. >> right. and there is still a line that is 1 block away, right? >> that is true. >> you've also and you didn't touch on your presentation today but you discussed it in your filing about the parking issue. is it in terms of this project, it's 12 units. and a restaurant with no parking
2:58 pm
spaces. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> is it your view that a building with 12 units and no parking with the restaurant below it would that be tip the project into an environmental impact sflort -- report? >> not necessarily. >> in terms of restaurants that have gone in in the neighborhood i don't think any of them have parking. do you think of any that have parking recent restaurants that have gone into the mission is this >> a number of them supply loading zones. >> but in terms of can you -- customer parking, it's not something you typically find. >> not typically. >> also you allow other neighbor areas for parking and the proposed mission parking for bartlett street. you recall referring to those? >> yes. >> do you think those are in you have to rise to the level
2:59 pm
of being a project into an environmental impact report? >> i don't know and neither does the board because those facts are not mentioned in this environmental document. >> all right. so you think adding a few park let's in the mission could have an environmental analysis in determining whether this project has an environmental report. is there a relevance? >> there is relevance and a discussion of parking in the environmental document itself. it's glaring. >> i'm asking for your opinion in what the analysis should be. how many do you think that adding parkletts in various parts of the mission on valencia would be enough to tip this project into an ei r. >> it's not a fair question
3:00 pm
and narrowly focused. some spaces have been lost in the area and it's not brought up and even in the document, they do count spaces and how many will be used and that information should be there. >> do you think it's enough to tip it into a higher level of environmental review? >> i will have to wait to see the analysis if it's done? >> you have analyzed that, haven't you? it's your job. >> i have analyzed the environmental review and they lacked those discussions that you are bringing up now. it's not in front of you. >> you don't have an opinion about losing some parking spots and could tip this into a higher level of environmental