Staff recommends that the commission make a specified findings to approve this project. Thank you. Im available for any questions you might have. Thank you. Project sponsor, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you very much for allowing us to present this afternoon. My name is bob tanedler. It is my pleasure to be before you to introduce the tehama [speaker not understood]. Architect our Landscape Architect from cmg Landscape Architecture, Isabelle Wade has helped us plan our plaza and open space integration. Brad paul has helped drive our Community Outreach. Wane hu has helped us understand the economic benefits of the project to the city and county of San Francisco. Sam louder has acted a senior [speaker not understood] and guided us through government interaction and make sure i dont embarrass myself up here today. Susan yogi and david from acom have handled Environmental Review brilliantly and Andrew Junius is our esteemed counsel. All of our team is here to answer questio
Equity institute. We at the center strongly support the twin purposes of ceqa which are Environmental Protection and informed selfgovernment. And we all know that compliance with ceqa including public input has improved countless public and private projects in california over the last 40 years. Its resulted in tangible protection for endangered species and their habitats, cleaner hair and water and more efficient use of scarce public resources. Although many of the proposed amendments before you today appear to be technical conforming changes, the proposal as a whole would make Public Participation in city Decision Making even more difficult. Even more difficult than sitting in these hard benches for many hours as weve done in many chambers here. And were concerned that the proposed amendments improperly subvert the important public informed selfgovernment principles of ceqa. So, first and foremost, the repeal of existing appeal procedures and administrative code 31. 16 and the replace
Thank you. Next speaker. Let me call some more names. calling speakers . Good afternoon commissioners, president fong. I am john gold man and i presented at your two previous meetings and i am here again. Presented ideas of grandfathering in certain projects. We are the architects and we designed to the building to reflect the concerns and there are studio apartments along 11th and the two bedrooms are away from 11th and we designed the building to meet a kooftic requirements so there is no sound transfer so i am here to reiterate again with proper design and unit mix and arrangement and acoustic design and i like the idea of it on 11th as long as you can do that and the night time times are great and our project which has been in submittal for seven years and we didnt proceed because we wanted to piggyback on the eir that was approved today after seven years ago. There was never reason for me to do that and get my own project going so what i want to emphasize here and cory teague and
The left side have been totally refurbished. I guarantee, i was there last friday and they are usable. And new paint on there and replacement of the windows and doors. These are the replacement windows. The crew working there. And replacement of windows on the outside. Making it a presentable place, one that can be a value to the community. Next i want to talk about abandoned dock removal. On the abandoned docks, there are some docks behind the vegetation there. Those were old docks that were reachable from the shore line. And they were derelict over the years and eyesore. And we worked close with rec and park to get those removed. We took care of the permitting for the removal and rec and park provided the manpower to get those out of the lake. And now that corner of the lake doesnt have floating eyesores out there. I think thats a big step forward. On the recreation front, rec and park has been actively programming recreation there during the summer and fall. Classes and kayaking and
Use usually by residents or employees. Class 2 targeted shortterm use, usually for visitors and can be located indoor or outdoor. Requirements would require calibrating parking requirements based on the characteristic of use. For example, office uses will have more employees than visitors, than the requirement for class 1 will be higher. For personal services such as a gym, there would be more visitors and employees and class 2 requirements would be higher. Our proposal would overall increase bicycle parking requirements. Forresidential uses, existing requirements are one per two units. Which is really low, compared to comparable cities and contemporary green standards. Small projects of four units are less would not be required to provide racks. They just need to provide sufficient space for bicycles. For larger buildings over 100, the second box, the requirements will be sliding scale. So for any units over 100, the requirements would be 1 4 units. So for example, a 200unit residenti