Landmark. Laurel hill gardens cemetery. As well as the cemetery, for San Francisco pioneers u. S. Senators and civil war heroes, its a treefilled park for San Francisco residents. Since i noticed the Historic Cemetery plaque missing from the red brick wall a few years ago, i wondered why would anyone want to erase this history. It made me sad. Well, as a result, it seems that the job of marking and memorializing this important San Francisco landmark has been left to its survivors, the trees. Some of these large, old growth trees are monument to this lost history. In addition to the history, many studies have reported that the loss of large, old trees leads to an over all loss of urban biodiversity. They are critical ecological structures because relative to their size, they are disproportionate providers of resources crucial to wildlife. Its times of Necessary Development and help preserve the landmarks that define your cities rich history. Concern neighborhoods are not anti developmen
Reduce loading impacts as dwell times for trucks and loading times would be reduced so they could get in and out of the building. This is not sequa issue. The appellant fails to meet the burden that the record supports reversal of the Planning Commission and dpw. It did not and cannot provide evidence in support of its evidence. The records supporting the determinations is thorough consisting of multiple years of study and analysis and based on facts and evidence rather than argument and infect allegation. Speculation. This project will transform and underutilized wallofftioff tens sites with 744 new homes. , 185 affordable units for seniors, childcare uses and neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses. We ask you reject these appeals and move forward today. Thank you, supervisors. Thank you. Any questions . I have a question of the proje project, is there a reason why it was infeasible to make a family unit affordable . So this project through the Development Agreement, it was d
When weighed against the benefits of this project, namely the creation of muchneeded housing, and a more walkable streetscape, the mitigations were found to be sufficient by the planning commission. Furthermore, the appellant proposed alternatives that were similar to two alternatives studied in the eir. Packages of design changes to mitigate the Historic Resource were included in four preservation alternatives in the eir, which are not considerably different from the alternatives proposed by the amelants. Appel. They argue it should have been included in the chapter but similar alternatives were studied and sequa did not require that an eir consider every alternative or combination of alternatives. Based on evidence presented today, it is my belief the final eir complies with the sanfrancisco admin code, providing an adequate impact of the project and thus, will be making a motion to deny the ail peel and affirm the final eir certification. A motion made and is there a second . Second
So, this was another new aspect. The e. I. R. Response to comments states the project will comply with the provision to the planning code as to Affordable Housing but thats inaccurate because the Development Agreement would wave those and have no moderate Income Housing and have its own plan. The e. I. R. Failed to analyze the projects potentially Significant Impact on shadows on publicly accessible open space. This is the Developers Site plan and shadows are shown in blue. This shows frequent shadows on the lower walnut walk and the square which the developer proposes to use as Community Benefits and open space. These proposed areas would be shaded mostly by the proposed buildings for much of the day or year. The city procedures provide that shadows must be studied if the use of open space could be adversely effected. And it doesnt matter whether the open use controls. The city failed to conduct a cityrun planning process. And the developer described his proposed project to the commun
Consistent with the policies and objectives of the citys general plan. The appeal also demands specific modifications to the project including the following. Limiting the height and modifications to the reuse Center Buildings and a reduction of the new building near laurel and euclid to preserve more open space and further limits on the types of nonresidential uses proposed. Related to the height of the Center Buildings, the Planning Commission supported the overall scale including the height because their placement in the center of the site set back from the public rights of way was a project objective. The project would place shorter buildings along the perimeter between 40 and 65 feet to serve the transition to the taller buildings in the center. A reduction in height of the Center Building would result in a reduction in dwelling unit count or to keep the unit count consistent, 744, and increase to other proposed New Buildings along the perimeter and compromising the compatibility.