Ceqa findings that are discussed were the ceqa approval for the project not the certification finding what is before this board a certification of the eir not the project approval so there is two different slightly different standards for looking at alternatives depend on where youre looking an analysis versus a reservation to a project for the process of approving the project. Maybe i can rephrase are you able to talk about the ceqa appeal before the board and whether or not you doing the presents land value is the appropriate standard. The board is looking at the reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the projects under consideration like the project approval Decision Maker was the Planning Commission had enough options to look at it and the eir actually did not reject any of the four alternatives discussed as the 3 alternatives discussed rather as imagine feasible it looks like at the potential feasible this metal shed alternative the presentation the reduced density and the new alternative was required under ceqa those alternatives were rejected as infeasible through the approval process this is what the planning that is was a large project authorization so it should have been appealed to the board of appeals now getting to your question for informational purposes as i understand that the Feasibility Analysis look at in volley ball the land the land value as opposed to so the acquisition costs the sponsor paid in the site there is a somewhat case that came out that concerned steve jobs hours in palo alto where it was argued that steve jobs should have preserved his home in palo alto instead of demolishing it not infeasible to preserve this house it was steve jobs and had enough money to do that the court found not looking at the specifics of the particular pertaining to see whether or not they can afford to do what you want to do them but a reasonable investor and that case is not on point but similar as i understand the appellants are arguing we should be considering that the Planning Commission should consider its analysis the regular meetings are held on the second and fourth tuesday of each month. Of this naeflt to reject this not the land use but the project sponsor paid for the land 10 years ago and if you analysis this to the steve jobs you should look at the land value thats what the person would do not circumstances of this project sponsor. That is thorough answer. So i think the best one ive gotten to that question. Commissioner peskin. Is that a published decision. I dont have the citation. Supervisor cowen. Thank you supervisor president london breed. Tidal 0 move on to talk about the views i think that views everyone know there is beauty views in potrero hill and heard remarks in Public Comment i was hoping someone would detail what kwflgz a project to be an in fill appropriate proje project. 3 criteria for an in fill project it is defined and the 3 car criteria are it is surrounded by urging use the project is an employment for an employments or commercial use and the third proximity to transit the 3 criteria. One more time a little bit louder were trying to turn up our volume. Surrounded by urban uses and has promised to transit and transit meets a standard and an employments project or a residential project okay thank you question about height and bulk he know it is a touchy topic whats the height that was analyzed in the eir. 68 feet. Thats standards all right. Pdr and umu is a pretty important to discuss so could someone talk about the overall pdrs Square Footage is lost you heard in the remas of the public empowers so what is the overall pdrs any discrepancy in that number you know the loss that was analyzed in the eastern neighborhoods eir what was anticipated and castro hill showcase square plan and how much loss have weve seen to data two part question. Thank you supervisor cowen so another handy overhead with the pdrs loss same concept residence on the eastern neighborhoods eir and this is as of july 1st, 2016, the eir had at Planning Commission in their motion to civil right the eir accepted option c agency is amount of pdrs that was expected to be lost and in showcase square nine hundred and 91 plus square feet and in all the ooermgz 4 millions 9 hesitate plus square feet so almost a maintains in showcase square and 5 million overall and projects in showcase square lost one and 32 square feet of pdr thats 13 percent of the estimates and the projects that are allowed will remove another 23 thousand 22 more percentage that is the projects go about discussed and others 3 thousand square feet the for essential is 40 percent of what is expected in this area that is projects adrc pdrs hooper and like projects that take away and projects adrc. Whats the rational hidden rezoning. Well have to stack it back to the eastern neighborhoods adopted in 2008, after 10 years of conversation the basis of plan was to protect spiritual space pdr space spiritual from the 19 vcr mushy zone as office as of right and housing as of or the and allowed housing and cu and a ton of uses theyre moving in the right direction to each other and we recognize the need to protect the bluecollar and is communities benefits and housing in concentrates areas for the childcare and others consolidated was than over a large area the eastern neighborhoods plan was that compromise half of the lands was zoned pdrs so much more reflective no office and housing was allowed and the other half was approved as user mixed use that allowed pdr and loud retail and a housing for the first time and generated into the Housing Units than required elsewhere in the city and generated the Public Benefits from the impacting impact fee we generated over 50 Mental Illness of revenue that would not have been gun generated we can go on and on but if you have other questions ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Im sorry supervisor cowen i do want to add ward to the pdrs loss as steve mentions an issue that hark end to the eastern neighborhoods the eastern neighborhoods that pdr is a significant pack under 3 of the alternative as well as interesting the in project alternative thats if the area was not zoned projected to be a significant pdrs loss happening from a ceqa stand point thats an impact that was identified in the eastern neighborhoods eir we recognized this project in the Environmental Impact we recognized this tracked down to that art disclosed and analyzed Significant Impact so this is an issue that one the topics that it pertains to the area plan analyze rather than this project our sticking with the ear plan which is the area plan in general how many projects built in this area plan. How many plans have been built. Maybe you can explain the difference between the projects. Steve Planning Department staff again, im not we know exactly when projects or how many the sum totals. One 50 for all the eastern neighborhoods. So my colleagues said one and 50 overall in the eastern neighborhoods some are small like the daggett with the propreponderance to be built on showcase square lets monarch with the parks and a common theme in the comments can you talk about what park projects are contemplate and completed for the eastern neighborhoods. Sure so Department Staff ill admit im not the staff that is working on the day to day of the implementations but have a spreadsheet okay specific to open space the eastern neighborhoods plan has funded the daggett park that is directly across the street with a one acre to be opened in the next few weeks and funded the green project that is open space project and opportunity the rehabilitation the jackson park and funded bug projects like the fillmore e fulsome. Sfgovtv please. Thank you heres an overhead so a new park lefthand side brand new on fulsome and off the map the rehabilitation of south park currently underway projects that are funded along with other projects that are budgeted but waiting money to come in like the rehabilitation of gene friend playground and many projects skaufrtsz throughout the eastern neighborhoods. What is the planning code require when building new parks. What does it require in open space for a project like this. I believe 80 square feet theres reminders on the developments itself and then the fee money that goes towards open space to i maybe speaking but 80 square feet per units for open space if it is private and 54 if it is public. Actually, if i can clarify those numbers that the gentleman is mentioning has to do with with the amount of open space by the project sponsor on the project site and its theres a distinction between via assessable to a certain unit verse assessable to all of the opts out of the project the pubically assessable parks and open space that above and beyond the private. Im glad you answered i dont know if you can quantify but what the project proposing to provide. I can ask the project sponsor if you dont know. It would be 50 thousand square feet total. This the last section has to do with with transit and traffic and a hot topic that is impressed but is mta staff come to this mike potrero hill is poorly provided with transit and particularly talk about the timing associated with the 16th street Improvement Project and weve been hearing a lot about this to come and. Hello julia operation and switzerland manager anothers sfmta im very excited about the transit investment weve made within the last two years plus the work that is coming within the last two years as part of 10 Percent Service increase weve launched the 16th street which is a new line providing access to barts and making connects both mission bay and theres the frequency on the it 2 fillmore and we have both extended the hours of townsend so weve made it an 18 Hour Services that used to end at the 7 00 p. M. And increased the trekcy from 20 to 15 minutes and also working on Capita Investments youve alluded to our board has all right approved transit on this lanes and others transit appropriate futures for 16th street which is essentially like a brt bus Rapid Transit were working towards getting some of the low costs pieces of that on the ground by 2017 and the full project which includes a dedicated transit lane for potrero hill and the extension of the 22 fillmore that requires octavia boulevard work into mission bay by january of 2020 that is a fully funded project one that is all right completed pits primary entering that project benefits part of funding plan that comes from eastern neighborhoods money about thirty percent of it we also have been a 10 minute walk of the site. The connections to Market Street and chinatown i believe that is a transit rich area we are always working to make improvements and to that end we have been working over the last 6 months with Community Leaders in the dog patch in coastline and in anybody to try to identify Additional Service opportunities and we plan to have more public dialogue over the next year on this topic. All right. The appellant contends the traffic analysis is incompletes largely balls is it relies on summaries before the u usf hospital opposite side and not including an analysis of the impacts of the possible proposal or tear down of 280 any are those items that the department analyzed. Supervisor cowen wade with Planning Department staff the original analyze that we when this project started we took counts in 2012 thats when the project first filed applications we took counts in 2014 at the a select if you intersections between the draft eir and the responses we took counts addressed select intersection in 2015 and 8 to 10 months after the hospital opened in mission bay and our results of those counts the analysis had really not changed by the draft eir and is comments document in regards to 280 this is a highlevel studies that we dont consider foreseeable through the ceqa process how we define the cumulative promotions not analysis any potential speculative impacts from that project. Wow. Okay i assume you didnt study the impacts of the proposed warriors stadium coming in. The cumulative analyze for the transportation study used growth assumptions that were in the eastern neighborhoods plan and then grown out through projections at the time, we did the study at the time in mission bay and proposal that the worries now sort of have an improved project if approved the so there were growth assumed at the sight and that factored into the traffic analyze the specific warriors project per say was not accounted in the traffic analysis but based on the analysis that away was done if the eir the times periods and the over lapsing of conclusion changed our conclusions in the eir. Can you summarize our traffic analysis. Yes. We studied 14 intersections 14 intersections. I dont mean to be difficult but list all 14. Oh, man lets do this we have a graphic. A graphic. A map. Okay. So well do it highlevel our support team get the details so through the traffic analyze 14 intersections then what. So under the metric of the automobile dla detail looked at the existing conditions and project conditions and future cumulative conditions under the exists plus project we identified Significant Impacts as a result of the project at 3 intersections and under cumulative conditions we identified an impact at a fourth intersection when we have a Significant Impact we try to identify feasible mitigations we worked with sfmta staff on identifying those mitigation measures and two of the intersection we to identify the feasible mitigations and then we that was one of the tops we analyzed in transportation and looked at the impacts to people walking and bicycling and loading and construction and emergency assess. You looked at bicycling you heard there was a complrment that was recently hit by a car and the project is not even built not to isolate that project but many projects in the pipeline or not on line as well to be honest this is the one portion of the analysis that i have the most concern with just isnt jiving we have problem now were not near build out to what were projects to be and so this is concerning planning thank you for answering all any questions and mta i dont know if there is anything you want to add about traffic calming studies or analysis. Id like to add the 16th Street Project is a complete streets project so in addition to transit safety and reliability investments on 16th street includes the investments with new Traffic Signals to make it easier to corresponding and short crossing distances and investment in bicycling other than 17th street including the new transit lanes but to be fair 16th street is though a significant amount of improvements is it so with only street and in the potrero hill showcase square planned area so when you go into this area now there is real congestion around the round about getting into mccoppin and getting on to 280 and you know the analysis is almost silent on the possible tearing down the freeway the impact will be so this is im going to pause and thank you for allowing me an opportunities to ask those questions and colleagues thank you for letting me rays those and supervisor peskin has a few issues i dont know if ive left anything urban turned thank you madam president. Supervisor peskin. Thank you madam president and next slide, please supervisor cowen asked many of the questions i was curious that helps to reduce any questions by quite a bit of so one about an issue of fact your number was 3043. So one was just an issue that hasnt been resolved. They showed a total loss of pdr of 823,760 ft. 2 which doesnt obviously hit the 991,463 ft. 2 that was the preferred alternative in the eir and 2025 your number is about half of that so i just wanted to try to understand why your sets of numbers are different. Theres is a great detail and project by project and it is in approval in unit counts and yours is just a male made a number and in so far as you include that attachment has there been some analysis as to whether or not their numbers are valid. Im not saying that your numbers are approved i just want to resolve the issues with that. Steve can you just give us a few minutes to look at that i have not looked at this list but i go through with our data team and see where the discrepancies are with that. And then, maybe some highlevel observations aboutthis project that maybe transcend this project i was on the board at the time that presided over the 2008, actually for many, many, years but in 2008 i was on the Land Use Committee the that pres. Breed serves in now and what i think the industrial m on m2 zoning allowed all sorts of things that would have fundamentally change that neighborhood and i think that correct analysis and in some ways what we are discussing here today through this project we are looking back and now getting onto a decade later they both happened actually much faster than any of us into the paid it so it raises some questions that are implicatedin this eir and the cir tears off the 2008 and it makes one raise questions which if we if we are at 3015 units we are 80 or past what we analyzed and we are about to hit that ceiling. So assuming for the sake of discussion and we are at 3043 we are darn close to what was analyzed for the planfrom that 2008 eir. What happens when we get our next appeal for a project. That will clearly take us past that 3080,what will mrs. Jones say then . We are actually cognizant of this issue. We are analyzing projects that are within that projection total however, we are considering the issue of how essentially, how long can we continue to tear off the eastern neighborhoods eir. We are looking at well one thing to understand about the Residential Development and the nonResidential Development used in eir projections are how are they used . The way that they are used is to understand the increase in population and as a result an increase in the relative impacts that would result. So because our residential growth has happened very fast but nonresidential growth has not been anywhere near what was projected. We are still well below the population topic the population projection and the increased population so that is the first part of the answer and the second part of the answer is Residential Development does have different types of impactsthen nonResidential Development so you cant say that for the topic area all were looking at is the extra bodies that are hanging around. The specific topics that you have to look at in regard to Residential Developments would have to do with services and utilities, parks, and wastewaters. They are those kind of issues. We have updated our analysis to recognize the changes that have occurred since 2008. We are working with the puc, we are working with the parks and recreation, theres been a lot of progress in the change in those areas and a lot of change in the service that is going on. We have updated that analysis and we have also updated the analysis for transportation. And so, we are incorporating new data into the analysis in order to reach the conclusions about the impacts. And you know, ultimately we are going to be able to conclude the impacts into the project that is done within the eastern neighborhood cir and at that point we will not continue to do what the Community Planning analysis for those projects when asked whether the Warriors Committee was going to affect at the Warriors Arena i dont want to put words in her mouth but it was something to the effect of it couldnt get worse. In the area plan in the 2008 eir as testimony of supervisor collins personal experience and all members of the boards personal experience if you go down at 430 in the afternoon, i shouldve stayed on 101 i was afraid of running late for a Board Meeting but i shouldve stayed on 101 and i wouldve been on time. All of those impacts should be warning signs to the city relative to the use of these information tool which is an eir for decisionmakers to rely on and i just want to put that out there while you guys are planning for time and attempting to resolve the issue. The last thing and supervisor cohen asked a lot of the questions already that i was going to ask is that there is a governess issue for the of 11 members of this boardand this plays over the metal shed alternative and with all due respect deputy City Attorney burn i do think that these are not within the realm of supervisors to work on and not to agree or disagree on but will leave that for another day. To the extent that staff in the eir includes an alternative and says it is feasible as part of the project approvals it is determined that it is infeasible because of this Economic Analysis and that was not part of the eirthat is properly approved before this board. I believe the findings are properly approved by this board but joe given her and i will argue over that for the next five or six years. But as to the fact that the Planning Commission made a determination that it was not economically feasible that in its face is a indication to me that your eir is flawed. If you can follow that logic. Anyway, i will wait to hear about the factual dispute and that is the end of my questions. You can answer if you want miss jones. I mean, it wasnt a question it was a statement but if you want to comment that is fine because i have a feeling with the appellants in the line of work this will not be the last stop in inthe odyssey. Concluding that any alternative was not preferable to the proposed project i think that the questions around the project sponsors choice and not to pursue the metal shed alternative would best be post to the project sponsor but the Economic Feasibility although that has been raised by the appellants as the reason that the metal shed use alternative was rejected that was not the reason for the Planning Commissions findings. The Planning Commissions findings had to do with the ability for the project to meet the citys objectives and the metal shed use alternative would have substantially less housing and that was the primary basis for the planning committees objection to the alternative and i believe it did that. Okay, seeing no other names on the roster we will have the real party and interest to present they areyou have up to 10 minutes. Good evening pres. Breed and supervisors. I am steve martel here on behalf of josh smith the project sponsor. The project is to build a building on 16th st. And on 17th st. It includes 23 threebedroom units and twobedroom units throughout the entitlement projects josh has engaged in the us projectand we have had copies of many letters of support. Our onsite bmr units are an almost 10 you units for the city fund there is a landscape blocking the pedestrian alley for 16th and 17th streets that will be publicly accessible 24 seven. Josh is making a 1 million donation to the friends of jacks playground. To support transient improvements as well as the sustainability fee and the childcare fee. And this will also be six pdr flex unit designed on 17th st. For bice partisan acres theres 25,000 acres for retail including one space big enough for grocery and pharmacy. It is a true mixed use project. It is over 40,000 squarefoot of public and private space. No established organizations such as the betrayer boosters Neighborhood Association opposes this project. In 2012, six to one. The commission rejected the metal shed use alternative at that time. Currently this is being heard by the board of appeals for that reason the Planning Commissions project was final and not a subject of appeal what is before this board is the adequacy of the eir as an informational document. There is no doubt there is the final eir has over 500 analysis with seven technical reports and nothing was left out. The project eir focused on transportation and historic resources. It did propose significant transportation impacts and mitigation was not feasible. As the department discussed new analysis were performed in 2015 with the eir analysis. The metal sheds had been open air sheds and were heavily altered after 1946. Based on the firm of planck they determined that these were not adequate resources. The the cumulative loss of pdr in eastern neighborhoods as the Planning Department described you did notcome close to exceeding what the eir predict. In response to supervisor peskins question what is required in the eir is set it beef feasible. After the eir was completed, we prepared an Economic Feasibility report and we obtained suffolk consulting for this eir. The Planning Commission rejected this on a number of bases. As ms. Jones indicated the rejection of the alternatives was mainly based on the inability of the alternatives to meet the citys objectives and maximize housing projections on the sites of the eastern neighborhoods and also the traffic impacts the appellants here have failed to establish any procedural errors and have shown that the decisionmakers will have moreanalysis after making a decision. Rather than select an alternative that they favor. The founder proposed the height limits planned and that 67 foot height limit was mistakingly enacted. As the department explained Infrastructure Improvements are keeping ace with development. Vega park is under construction across the street, mission bay and Mariposa Park will be open next month and the central free rate will dramatically a improve service onthe freeway. The patraio unit. As contemplated by the unit and the eastern neighbor hood eir is not stale. The effects of this growth was planned for and anticipated in the 2008 eir. To conclude the project eir is adequate and complete. The Planning Commission was fully comprised of the impacts when they made the decision. To date the Planning Department has not indicated write more analysis is needed with that citys decisionmakers. Noel lpa was filedand this is more than adequate for decisionmakers on behalf of josh smith i urge you to reject this appeal. Thank you and with that i will open that up for Public Comment for those members of the public who would like to speak in support of the project. You have up to two minutes each per speaker please. Hello my name is i am an active Community Member the developer f has listened to the community a and their concerns through the project more than any developer that ive ever worked with. The project is a mixeduse project is completely code compliant. Additionally, the project restores the Brick Office Building on the corner of 17th st. And texas streetinto a very engaging retail space i especially like that within the 385 residential units there 42 onsite bmr units plus a 9. 7 million payments used to build additional bmr housing. The project also builds a 30 foot wide promenade, this will provide the needed conductivity between 16th st. And 17th st. Instead of the blank walls of the resting corrugated warehouse that currently exists. Please support the projects as this is designed and give us the retail housing and project as this is plan. [timer dings] dear supervisors as long time resident of potrero hill i am writing you to reject the rejection of the eir. It is time to finally do something about this terribly crowded corner of potrero hill. This project is simply the best i have seen in 50 years in this community. Here are the highlights 395 units of Family Housing with 146 units with two full bathrooms and over 200 twobedroom housing 42 of the on site units art 55 ami approximately 10,000 ft. 2 of secure family and childrens outdoor play area of 1. 97 million payment and a one milliondollar donation to friends of jackson park. This does rid the neighborhood of a slum area of corrugated metal that now take up the space in the neighborhood. It is for these very impressive reasons that i a have supported my neighbor is in thisdevelopment in our neighborhood. Next speaker please. One of the most significant steps of this project happened in the early months of 2014. We looked out the windows as the warriors and giants of the mckenzie project and this project was made glamorous with video and other resources about discussions that they would do in the neighborhood. Despite the amenities many of us felt overwhelmed about the range of information we were asked to take in. The developer of the core of an project took those comments to heart and set up a separate meeting for us to take a look at what he was planning to do. I still remember that day. It was raining cats and dogs on the outside Neighborhood House and on the inside we are posting notes and poster boards on the elements of the project and we were asked to make our comments and attach them to the pertinent board in the process. That happened in 2014 and i asked for the people that came here to talk about this where were you then what we were doing the post it process. I think this would provide a relief from the blank in the potrero area neighborhood project. Thank you. [timer dings] i live on potrero hill since 1974. I agree with the appellant and many things in the eastern neighborhoods planned however, this is not the project to make stand this is a good looking project with many benefits. This is been pretrade as a pdr site but it is not. Theres no blacksmith there, theres the plumbers, currently its used for storage. In fact, it will provide new Community Benefits when new pr spaceand there would be 25,000 ft. 2 of retail space far more than we will see in the area. I own a pdr business. I want to see pdr around. I make my living from historic buildings. In my opinion this existing structure has no historic value at all. It is a rusted out old claptrap it is an eyesore. You should see the new development has so many nice elements it maintains a nice facade and there are numerous benefits i would hate to see these numerous Community Benefits fall by disapproving this eir. Thank you. Thank you next speaker please. Hi we are currently tenants in this old core van warehouse because we were booted out of hi we are currently tenants in this old core van warehouse because we were booted out of pierce 74 and art project and work that we do on delancey street and this organization is good enough to rent to us and we are still in favor of tearing this down because we did look at the amount of below market rate housing because to us, delancey street is incredibly important because theres almost no place to move after you graduated delancey street coming from anywhere. This is a particularly frightening part of 16th st. And its not safe to walk so we go around potrero hill to get there. This does incorporate an industrial field mixed with a warm, familyfriendly thing that is safe and beautiful. We have known josh smith for a number of years and his word has always been good with everything that we have been involved with and we support this completely. Thanks. Thank you. Welcome commissioner miguel. Pres. Breed and supervisors, obviously we let the speaker for the appellant set the tone, this is not why were here for the appeal of the eir, we are here for the eastern neighborhood plan. This is not the specific project. Also, our two supervisors that are varies familiar with lan use have asked the right questions yes, these eastern neighborhoods planned has to be revisited, but to penalize one of the finest projects that have come along in the area until this point is the wrong way to go in my opinion. I was on the Planning Commission the time the eastern neighborhood project was going through dont blame me, i had to recuse myself because i live in the neighborhood. But myself and a few others on this side of the hall actually read eirs and i read this one. We took tracks of industries and warehousing and trucking and rezoned what, a quarter of the city probably . That has never been done before. That backlog was let loose and expectations have been exceeded. This is a code compliant Family Friendly mixeduse project. No extra height density or change of zoning. It is exactly what we wanted to happen in the eastern neighborhoods. Revisited, i am with you. Please however, let this project continue the way that it should. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening supervisors my name is jim task and my partner and i own a property directly facing this proposed project on texas street and 17th st. And we also own a multiunit building on the adjacent block. We are veryfamiliar with the frequently occurring car breakins the regular dumping of debris abandon furniture, garbage, and routine graffiti that occurs in this area that is overwhelmingly dark and unwelcoming to pedestrians this project is well designed, it is family welcoming, it offers living space that is solely needed in San Francisco plus the 25,000 ft. 2 of neighborhoodbased retail that will be welcomed and i look forward to having it in this area. The attractive and fitting architecture which fits well under the neighborhoods industrial historic role has been well thought through. We welcome the activity of 24 hour life and the pride of a living neighborhood that this project will create. Josh smith has formed a professional team and the developer has been extremely active in communicating unwelcoming feedback and recommendations as well as acting as a discipline in multiple neighborhood meetings, discussing both this project [timer project [timerdings] as well as other projects in the neighborhood. My partner and i support this project and urge you to also support this project. Thank you. Good evening my name is vanessa k now i am on the dogpatch board. The president of dogpatch Neighborhood Association and a resident is not here so im reading this on his behalf. Supervisor cal when i support this project christianity johnson architects are unique architecturally attractive and incorporate design references that acknowledge and pay homage to Potrero Hills industrial past. Also, offering 22 three bedroom two full bath units as well as twobedroom twobath housing and as well as neighborhood area of [inaudible] please support me in supporting this project as what we expect for this project in dogpatch and the city at large thank you for your consideration sincerely dogpatch resident. [timer dings] thank you next speaker please. My name is lester simon i have lived on potrero hill for many years ive met josh and hes very respectful with this project and i support this project. Hello davei am a resident of potrero hill and a dog patch member, this is a great example i want to echo what other speakers have said. I think this is a great balance between the styles and the architectural teams and, a great use of the Brick Office Building and so on. I think concerning the communitythat is very understandable what weve heard today and, i appreciate that the board of supervisors on a macro scale i agree we should not hold back this particular project because of concerns about transportation on the pipeline that is coming in of additional proposals. Community access to open space. Mariposaand 17th st. Regarding transportation impacts there is tremendous anxiety in the neighborhood. We see density and congestion [timer dings] and, we dont necessarily see the transportation improvements on the ground but its hard to anticipate how the transportation improvements will match the buildings coming in. I did a private study very briefly on a friday night and i looked at the number 22 and the number 55 and the number 22 was very well used and there is a hope that that will be resolved [timer dings] thank you sir. Thank you sir. Speaker please. Good evening. My name is karen heterberg i am the owner of the new life Grocery Store andi am uncomfortable being on this side of the issue could im usually on the other side of an issue with the developer but, this developer is special and this project a special. I think that one of his problems is that he is right across the street from a very ugly project, protrero 1010, this project fits in with the neighborhood and the developer has done amends outreach and has been to all the Community Meetings that you could possibly go to and has taken in comments and worked on designs to try to mitigate problems. I would like to make a suggestion or compromise that says that i would like to see this project be an affordable project for residents and workers in Small Businesses on potrero hill that cant find a place to live. That their First Priority be to open up the housing that are around Small Businesses that are driving in from daly city and adding to the congestion [timer dings] that somehow if you lived in the neighborhood that thatmy improve your lottery or whatever that may be. I have another employee they cant find housing and is moving we need housing in potrero hill [timer dings] thank you maam. Thank you. Ms woods. Good afternoon, my name is ms. Woods. I urge you to reject the appeal and approved the eir. I think a lot of the problems that we are seeing come from the fact that Public Benefits have not caught up with this rapid change in land use. As Julie Kirschbaum knows we are constantly working with her to improve Transportation Options in the neighborhood. A lot of the mission bay street changes will impact traffic and transportation in the neighborhood. This is an on going issue that isnt going to go away and we are all working on it. This is a good project. This is a code compliant project. This shouldnt be tarred with the brush of the inadequacy of funding of the eastern neighborhoods plan. Even though it is hard to cobble all of these improvements together, i urge you to approve the project and stay with us while we improve the Public Benefits. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening. [clears throat] good evening, my name is johni will make this brief. I appreciate everything that josh has done. They have two of the best architects that they could. So, it is just a marvelous, marvelous plan and i do appreciate other people on potrero hill being critical all the time because maybe if we had a crystal ball we couldve done a better job with the eir but the eir was based on what was in place at the time so please approve this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening supervisor my name is janet carbon alley i live in dogpatch and i have that we in dogpatch are asking every developer to provide and most of them do not do the twobedroom units also, providing on Street Parking that we also want to have and i know a lot of developers are not providing much parking at all but we still need it, i appreciate the fact that the small brick building will be conserved and reused. I think it benefits the project in our neighborhood. The 30 foot wide landscape pedestrian walkway will provide a very nice pathway for people to get to the neighborhoods and downtown. And the um use zoning will be 25,000 ft. 2 of neighborhood serving retail space and also, the design of the project is very nice and i think that it will be an overall improvement [timer dings] and how it is kind of overpowering the neighborhood and i think it needs to be reviewed but for this project in particular, i support the project and i think that it should go through. Looking forward, we have to be diligent and make sure that our neighborhood is not being overpowered by too much residential and not any urban mixeduse [timer dings] thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening supervisors, my name is jack garman along with the 33 members locally here at local 22 and 8000 Carpenter Union members that come to work here in the city every day we want you to know that we wholeheartedly develop the proposed code compliant mixeduse Residential Development project located at 901 16th st. This will create new mobile construction jobs and additional opportunities associated with the development. This project is a Family Friendly mixeduse project that is code compliant and no extra density and height and no change in zoning. The 385 residential units include 42 onsite bmr plus payment of 9. 2 million of housing to find additional bmr housing. We know how the hundred and 46 and the 22 three bedroom two bath units and important though, i think important for the area is the 25,000 ft. 2 of neighborhood retail space in an area that can use it in a 10,000 squarefoot kid Friendly Play area for the residents to use and the project sponsors agreed to make a one milliondollar donation to the friends of jackson park, and im excited to work with builders on welding development on the proposed project between 16th st. And 17th st. And again, we wholeheartedly endorse for the reasons explained and we strongly urge you to support the project and support the neighborhood and support local jobs. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on behalf of the real party in interest in this eir appeal, we step up. Seeing none, the Public Comment has been closed. This hearing has now been heard and i would like to call up the appellant that has three minutes to do a rebuttle come on up but i the will bring it in supervisor heroin before you speak. Im sorry supervisor thank you for your patience, but i think it is very important to hear from the actualproject owner not the legal representation in this situation. There are not ceqa issues and your brief contains a list of issues that youve discussed with the neighborhood could you show us or walk through what those are. Sure in terms of open space there are 25,000 ft. 2 of neighborhood serving Community Retail and as we pointed out in the past, we voluntarily made a pledge of 1 million to improve jackson park because we believe it to be a local treasure and in need of renovation and improvement and we are happy to participate in that. That is true. Thank you for that. Your project actually has a shadow impact on jackson park . No . No, not on jackson. I know that you have made commitments to the friends of jackson park to support the communitys efforts for expanding and improving the space. I know i will be putting you on the spot and i dont want to embarrass you too hard but i want to be very public in upfront and i would love you to consider additional ways that you can support the park and development of the neighborhood and if there is any way that you could contribute a little bit more, we would really appreciate it because the park is not only a publicly shared aspect it is something that is a Community Effort and not just your future tenets. Allison he talks about how sheot involved with the park and how they have chased them away because there wereno open space i will be a little upfront and say that we need a little bit more. We agree with the community that jackson park is a treasure and we would be willing to increase our guest above and beyond the 1 million that we have already pledged we would be willing to go and increase it by another 800,000. [applause] i am on a roll. Can i have a mercedes . I think Keith Jackson could use a little im kidding, im kidding, be a joke. I know mr. City attorney mr. Deputy city atty. If the project sponsor chooses outside of this appeal to make commitments to the city or the community, that is between the project sponsor and to ever the project sponsor is making those commitments to but this discussion should really focus on the adequacy of that. Do you guys see a quickly jumped up there deputy City Attorney john gibbut i was actually joking but we will talk to the neighborhood about that. The appellants of the community really talked about needing more open space in the neighborhood can you tell us a little bit more about that in your project . Sure we really connected that promenade that connects 16th st. And 17th st. And whereas the code requires that that pedestrian promenade be 20 feet wide we have made it 30 feet wide and so, we have voluntarily increase the amount of open space and we also mentioned previously that we will have a secure childrens play area on site,again, we want to be a familyfriendly project and we want the kids that are living there to a place to play that are secure. All right thank you mme. Pres. Just to keep this moving i dont have any more questions for the project sponsor. Thank you at this time i wife the appellant to come forward and you will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. Thank you for your patience allison heath, with potrero [inaudible] that number in the analysis was with response to comments that the Planning Department must approve. We have made a compelling case to show that the eir is inadequate and that its eir is out of date and several of its exceptions are no longer supportive we have certain impacts in certain areas. Transportation as static views the shade and shadow and being consistent with area city plans and projects. The owner of the project fails to respond to comments made to the public in the draft eir. The city asserts there is no medication and contributes significantly to the cumulative loss of pvr so there is no disagreement about that. Under these conditions ceqa requires alternatives proposed for adoption. Planning found that the alternatives were not feasible based on land studies and acquisition cost and, i have on the overhead, the memo from the Planning Department specifically stating that land when reviewing alternatives increase costs of an alternative do not equate to economic infeasibility [timer dings] the fact that it would be sufficient or more or less profitable this not term that it is feasible. This is evidence that the additional cost of the probability are severe and the developer cannot meet that standard. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor cohen. Allison, i just have one question for you. This team has been incredible in leading the charge and focusing this conversation around this project and one thing thats on my mind is for what reason did you not make it appeal at the board of appeals . I think is a number of speakers have said it is a code compliant project,and our issue with the actual ceqa of the project and we feel the eir is insufficient and not properly studied. Thank you. I appreciate that honesty and again,your leadership has been tremendous. Thank you mme. Pres. Thank you. Supervisor peskin. I was thinking by now that the issues i originally raise could be answered by the Planning Department. Planning department, was that the question about the data . Where the appellant had said actually in the response comments that the 3135 was in the response the commons. Im sorry, 3315, excuse me. Can you please identify yourself. Steve orthon, Planning Department staff and in response to thatthis report is from 2015 and in this report in 2016 the projects changed so even a quick perusal of our own data it shows that since he published this data in february, several housing projects have gotten considerably smaller. Just looking at the one in the middle of the table, for example the one in mariposa has been reduced by 21 units and their is another 1001 17th has been reduced by many units as well so as the project evolves the project reduces, that is from the housing side, and from the eir side,just because these are listed it does not mean that it is trulyactive. For example there is a project listed that proposes 2000 and feet of office space and it required two things that required it to become a land mark and it required it to have a full conversion of eir supervisor can attest that we can do [inaudible] more full accounting but from a time standpointand how i convey the data is different. I do apologize the confusion in providing two sets of data in succession just to respond it is quite typical as projects to get smaller as they go through the planning process often times they identified a much larger projectsthan necessary in your project review because as time goes on if your project is larger than anticipated than youve already covered that so that is not typical. Just a comment to mrs. Jones im not sure that is a healthy policy because as you are getting up to your 3180 and youre acknowledging that there needs to be some revisiting of the 2008 analysis you might want to stop doing that process because its going to get you there faster. If i were to add up the numbers that mr. Moorefine just gave me even though what you have had quite a lot of time they have added tohundred and 80 units if you subtract that you interestingly enough you get the 3179 units which is one unit cheyenne 3180 which, i will say is under the 3180 which is nailed as the 2008 eir which mr miguel said was right but if you take that youre at 3179 which is one unit under 380. It still brings up the metal shed and so, the Planning Commissions motion which is exhibit a on the findings was actually not attached to your letter but i have subsequently found itand miss jones respectfully through the president is both wrong and right. You mentioned many, many things but you also mentioned the Economic Feasibility or lack thereof so they are both listed there. I think you have enough other findings that you can get there on policy. But, i would say that given what was brought up in the rebuttal if youre going to rely on Economic Feasibility you should not do that stuff in regard to the eir and then i want to bring up that i as a member of the board of supervisors and extremely uncomfortable and no disrespect to my colleague but we are dealing with a hearing on the adequacy or lack there of, an Environmental Review process and the impact that decisionmakers have to consider and that is not the subject of a financial transaction or increase donations and i just have to say for the record, it makes me remarkably uncomfortable supervisor cohen, will take care of that as soon as you finish with your questions that is not a question a comment. Supervisor peskin i apologize that i made you or anyone else, uncomfortable i was making a joke although not funny i was trying to make a joke and i apologize for making anyone at ease and i would ask that i be recused from this vote . I dont know maybe we should ask the City Attorney but i dont see where a conflict exists this was suggested by the City Attorney. Supervisor peskin is correct, there is no conflict that means supervisor peskin would have to cast a vote in less the board decides to recuse her from the vote. Are suggesting the supervisor cohen was that the board recuse her though it that there was no suggestion or clout to the board proceeding or any suggestion to the proposed gift of the project sponsor was proposing the outcome. Okay, with that colleagues, understanding your concern supervisor peskin this is not because of your concern. It was actually recommended by the City Attorney based on the comments or made by supervisor cohen. With that,do we have a motion for this . Supervisor kim. I actually have a question for the deputy City Attorney. It was your suggestionthat she recuse herself. If the offering of the gift during this proceeding would influence the outcome of the proceeding that is a concern that we want to avoid. The board should be making this determination based on its review of the eir and its adequacy based on the eir and not any adequacys within the project sponsor. I trust that my colleagues will make their decision based on the adequacy and completeness of the Environmental Impact review that was before us. I am a little worried about the precedent that sets for this board. Often, our offices are heavily engaged in negotiations around multiple, large projects this is a small project that come before the supervisors that have an environmental appeal before the board and in every decision that we make we make it within the confines of what we are allowed to review which doesnt include the offer that was made in that exchange. I just worry that in the future we are going to have to think about a lot of recusals being that often district supervisors are heavily engaged in project developments and working on negotiations between the neighborhood and the community and the project developer to bring forward a better projects or whether there was an additional open space or Affordable Housing or increased art shoots there are all things that we regularly engage in but that doesnt impact how we vote on an eir appeal but it certainly an aspect of every single project that comes before this board. I understand supervisor and our office provides advice to all of you and all of your offices regarding what is appropriate to ask for or to encourage of project sponsors in different circumstances and where it is not and i am not suggesting that supervisor, when would that supervisors cohens though would be swayed one way or another but what i am saying is this is a judgment to you and your colleagues to recuse her in this matter. I will respect my colleagues decision in this but there are a lot of factors that may impact decisionmaking in determining the adequate nest and the completeness in determining this eir and we understand the seriousness that is before us and we review the boundaries that we look at which is separate from the approval itself although they are linked which i understand but i will just put that for this board. Thank you supervisor kim. Supervisor compos. I think that supervisor cohen clarified what was happening there because the question was more for the City Attorney. City attorney i dont really know that the recommendation that there is a conflict i mean, a recusal requires a recusal not only from the vote but from the entire proceeding and so, if there is a problem with what happened here i dont know that sort of recusing one member at this juncture will actually cause a conflict and even in the context of an eir appeal sometimes the issue of Community Benefits, and so are we setting forwardgoing forward setting a precedent that because of this we need to recuse the supervisor from the project. Im just not sure that what youre saying actually it would cure potential conflict here supervisor cohen does not have a conflict. She has no personal interest in financial or otherwise in this appeal. She does not have a conflict nothing that the board does today considering this motion will require future boards to act in a similar way. I think what was on usual about this particular exchange was that supervisor cohen said i would like something more, and the project developer took her seriously but i offered up to supervisor cohen that its up to the board but that she may offer to recuse but that is up to the board. I think the way to deal with any kind of conflict that as individual supervisors we decide what is appropriate and we try to make individual preferences to the board. I dont know what your preferences supervisor cohen. I dont know what your preference is supervisor cohen but i do worry that were setting a precedent for all of us and i would make it clear that specific to these circumstances and if its possible to make that clear i want to do that. I would just say that i appreciate the comments of the colleagues. I do understand that its really, i think about the appearance of what it looks like based on the dialogue that took place and none of us is perfect. We dont know everything about what to do in the case of birs, negotiations and so we rely on the public we rely on the departments we rely on the City Attorney to make good decisions and i think what we want to try to do in this particular case is to make the public feel comfortable with our decision and from my perspective, i deftly think it is a little overreaction but i do understand the City Attorneyssuggestion that we do it and i would be open to it either way. So, supervisor cohen, would you like to make any comments . Like i have made already too many comments already no jokes. No more jokes. I promise. I do want to make a couple remarks before we go any further to make the motion for recusal just to be clear unfortunately have to decide whether youre going to recuse yourself or not so any further discussion as to whether youre going to recuse yourself or not until that decision is made. I would just ask that my colleagues would take with caution what the City Attorney has requested. I think that supervisor compos has made very clear the parameters and that is all that i have. Would someone like to make the motion . Supervisor farrell has made the motion to recuse supervisorcompos. I would just like to say that part of this was meant to be a joke and i dont know what went on behind the scenes but if someone says i dont know, i think we need a larger contribution and right on the spot the developer says we will contribute an additional 800,000, i just feel remarkably uncomfortable given what has gone on i would like to make a motion to recuse myself because i feel very uncomfortable. And i feel comfortable many times in very difficult situations but right now i do not feel comfortable. But supervisor we need to do what we feel relates this particular eir. And again, it wasnt based on your comments, it was based on once the dialogue took place the conversation took place between our deputy City Attorney and supervisor cohen so was already in the works. I dont know if that changes your comfort level, but, i am sure that there are enough supervisors to vote on this particular matter if you would like us to excuse you as well. Okay supervisor wiene . Do you have a comment, i dont think anyone needs to be recused here. I dont think that this was a legal issue i think that it was just an issue of appearance and i dont think that is anything to do with the rest of us. We have an obligation to adjudicate this eir. It has been fully briefed with everything on this project and i dont think any further recusals would be even appropriate. Okay, madam clerk on the motion to excuse supervisor cohen roll call vote. [roll call vote] there are 8 ayes and 2 nos with supervisors peskin and he in the dissent. Supervisor cohen is excused. [gavel] supervisor farrell has made a motion to approve item 50 and table 51 and 52. Is there a second . Seconded by supervisor tang. Mdm. Sec. , can you please call the roll . [roll call vote] there are 9 ayes and 1 no with supervisor peskin in the dissent. Okay, the appeal is denied. Mme. City clerk, can you please go back to item number 18. Yes item number 18 isitem 160657planning, administrative code construction of accessory dwelling units]sponsors farrell; wiener and peskinordinance amending the planning code to allow the construction of accessory dwelling units adus, also known as secondary or inlaw units on all lots in the city in areas that allow residential use; amending the administrative code to revise the definition of rental unit as it applies to adus; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302; and directing the clerk to send a copy of this ordinance to the California Department of housing and Community Development after adoption. If it is okay with my colleagues i would like to have a vote now. Mdm. Sec. Please call the roll. [roll call vote] there are nine ayes and 1 no with supervisor e in the dissent. There is a motion to rescind the vote and we will retake the vote. This is motion by supervisor wiener and seconded by supervisor farrell. On item number 18. Please call the roll. [roll call vote] the motion passes 10 ayes and 1 no with supervisory in the dissent. The ordinance is finally past. [gavel] mme. City clerk, please go to item 25. Item 25 is160813 cohen25. 160813[Charter Amendment Affordable Housing and Community Development hearings and reports]sponsors peskin; kimCharter Amendment third draft to amend the charter of the city and county of San Francisco, to require the office of economic and Workforce Development oewd and the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development mohcd to propose fiveyear strategic plans for consideration and approval by the board of supervisors; to require oewd and mohcd to report to the board of supervisors regarding their annual work plans at least two times each fiscal year; and to provide that ordinances adopted under the processes set forth in the charter regarding inclusionary housing requirements and regarding competitive selection for the expenditure of Affordable Housing funds and for the development of Affordable Housing on cityowned property under the jurisdiction of mohcd shall supersede ordinances and rules adopted by the board of supervisors or the voters prior to march 1, 2017, at an election to be held on november 8, 2016. Mme. City clerk, can you also call item number 26. Item number 26 is 160588 eight Charter Amendment with the housing and Development Commission with the sponsors peskin and kim and this is a francisco, to create the housing and Development Commission to oversee the department of economic and Workforce Development and the department of housing and Community Development; to require the commission to review and make recommendations regarding proposed Development Agreements and conveyance of certain surplus City Property before the board of supervisors considers such proposals; to require the commission to hold hearings and make recommendations regarding proposals to adopt or change inclusionary housing requirements for housing developments; to require the commission to adopt rules creating competitive selection processes for the department of housing and Community Developments expenditure of Affordable Housing funds and for the development of Affordable Housing on cityowned property under the jurisdiction of the department of housing and Community Development; and to provide that ordinances regarding inclusionary housing requirements and rules regarding competitive selection for Affordable Housing adopted under the processes set forth in the charter may supersede ordinances and rules adopted by the board of supervisors or the voters prior to march 1, 2017, at an election to be held on november 8, 2016. As i expressed last week, one of my concerns was the fact that we were proposing the idea of one commission to oversee two departments. I do understand there are components with 0awds work however in terms oftheir functions im very concerned with on commission overseeing at both departmentsotherwise. So i asked my colleagues to support item 25 and if we dont then item 26 and again, i think i know what the outcome is but this would be something to eliminate the oewd from the commission with other transparency issues with my colleagues at a been raised with the department. At this time, i strongly urge my colleagues to consider an alternative for item 25 and for item 26 that is the one with the commission. So, that is all that i have to say today. Again, i think i know where this is going to go. Thank you. Supervisory a. Thank youwhat we have seen is that we have been able to work on a couple of different issues. I have continued because i heard some things that i thought would be the possibility of maybe coming to some compromise. I spoke to both parties in this case and i thought that i had what i wanted to do was not shy away from the commission idea and i wanted to improve maybe the policy of the idea. I was hoping there would be an agreement. But, at the end of the day yesterday partners came to me and nobody seemed very happy. Basically saying, forget it. No matter what you do, i am not supporting you. So, this came from both sides and it is really hard for me to pursue amendments when even though i dont think its the right thing on both sides say well, we are going to amend it anyways. So im just sorry that i couldnt get this in terms of an agreement. So, i wont be offering amendments. I just wanted to let you know and let people know that its not because i wasnt trying. Thank you supervisory. Supervisor peskin. Thank you mme. Pres. And supervisory a. I want to thank supervisory and attempting to bring folks together. There are a number of issues some of which of already been placed on the ballot where, we were not able to find that sweet spot. I fundamentally believe that this city, our transparency, and the ultimate behavior and mission of mohcd and oewd will be enhanced by having a commission i believe it will become more fair and more transparent and i would hope that you would all consider joining me when i cosponsor supervisor kim. And thank you supervisor kim with your cosponsorship in voting for item 26 and item 25 is something that i put out there in an attempt to try to forge a compromise which unfortunately was not forthcoming and i respectively ask for your vote against item 26 and lets put item 26 on the ballot and lets move ahead into the dawn of the 21st century. Thank you supervisor kim. Supervisor campos. I want to think supervisor e for trying to find a compromise and given that i think that was impossible here i think we should make a choice between 25 and 26 i think we should go with 26 its incredibly balance. When you think about it, the most significant issue facing the city right now is the issue of affordability, housing affordability, and i think having more discussion on this issue would be a good thing for all of us so im happy to support item 26. Thank you supervisor campos. Supervisor wiener. Thank you mme. Pres. I cant support this in the condition that is and if this were simply creating a commission in the mold of the Planning Commission or Police Commission over the Mayors Office of housing or Community Development so an Affordable Housing commission essentially where the mayor appointed commissioners and the board president up pointed three with the same approach to hiring the director and if that were being proposed here i would certainly support that. I have thought about the idea of an Affordable Housing commission and it is taking on a greater role and more money is flowing through Affordable Housing so our committee does make sense to me but that is not what this is. This is not our traditional split appointment where we would acknowledge that this is an agency and an executive branch where the mayor gets a majority of the Commission Appointments and the mayor plays a role in hiring a Department Head and the mayor is politically accountable to the voters for the performance of the executive branch. Instead, this is taking two very significant departments, and taking these two departments that are part of the executive branch and removing them effectively from the executive branch by putting them under one commission where the mayor makes the minority of the Commission Appointments and according to this measure if im reading it correctly the mayor plays zero role in actually selecting the director and so, under this circumstance though i am under the agreement of the concept ofwhat this proposes this particular way that this is proposed i just cant support that. Supervisor. I would just like to say that we are spending quite a bit of resources on these housings we know this is an issue that the public cares deeply about when in fact, if you look at the poles its the top two or three that San Franciscos are thinking about and certainly what they would like increased dialogue, discussion, and feedback on. But, as our a Feasibility Study moves forward on proposition c moves forward and we talk about the size of projects and neighborhoods but also based on the type of needs that we want to fulfill in the citya commission is going to be invaluable in helping to guide the support of the Mayors Office in terms of direction that we as a city want to take for Affordable Housing. In particular, i believe this comes up in almost every single project that are
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.