tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 12, 2018 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> good afternoon. and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, march 8, 2018. i would remind the members of the public that the economising does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your devices and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one, case number 2016-010185cua. at 160 caselli avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to march 29, 2018. item two, case number 2017-014849cua at 220 post
street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to april 19, 2018. further, commissioners, under your consent calendar, item three, case number 2017-005992cu at 48 saturn street. conditional use authorization. we've received a request from the project sponsor to continue this matter an additional two weeks to march 22. excuse me. finally, under your regular calendar item number 19, case 20s 17-008121cu at 1805divisdero street, we receive add request from the project sponsor to continue this matter to april 26, 2018. i have no other requests for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> all right. any public comment on the items being proposed for continuance?
>> good afternoon, commissioners. john kevlin here, speak on -- speaking on the continuance of 48 saturn. we've been working with staff over the last three months to follow the commission's direction at the last hearing. we're asking for another two-week continue twaons go back to the neighbourhood and give us some time to have some conversation there is. we appreciate the two weeks and will be back then. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> i like to ask that we hear saturn and give further instructions because we originally asked for input on how long the need for that continuance and if there is something in the packet. i want to commend on that so we don't spend another two weeks with no further direction given. >> commissioner richards? >> i'm following what commissioner moore said. i am a little concerned because
i know that the neighbours in the neighbourhood -- it's close to where i live actually were calling me about it -- and they caught wind that there was a continuance so they're not coming today. i think in all fairness to be able to give them a chance to speak and weigh in on the matter, i probably support a continuance. >> i would also. i think it was a little confusing, too, how it was on our calendar as a consent because it was disapproval of the prior project and yet there was a new project by a staff. so i'd say let's get community input into this and hear it again in two weeks. commissioner moore? >> i got a letter two nights ago of a person living on saturn saying exactly the opposite. that they were surprised after we sent it back in december that they had not been asked. so, that is basically the message -- >> they haven't been asked what? >> they have not been asked for any further input. >> yeah. that can happen in the two weeks. that's what we're hoping happens in the next two weeks.
there's community input. i agree. >> ok. is there a motion? >> move to approve as read. >> second? >> i move to continuance. >> thank you. on that motion to continue matters as proposed -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items also in member of the commission, public or staff so requests in which the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item that the or a future hearing. item three was continued. item four, case number
2016-014839cu at 4093 24th street, conditional use authorization, number five, 20s 17-005841cua at 2099 market street, conal use authorization, case number six 2016-007531cua 533 jackson street conditional use horizonization and item seven 2017-015199cua at 531 bay shore boulevard, conditional use authorization. we can hear it under the regular -- >> would you like the off consent? >> [inaudible]. >> will you speak into the mic pretty quickly? >> in order to accept public testimony, we have to pull it off of consent and hear it.
>> we'll have public testimony to determine -- >> certain issues within the plan as it is. >> we'll pull it off consent. >> ok. at the beginning of the regular calendar or at the end? >> let's do it after item 15. >> very good. >> commissioners, then that leaves items five, six and seven for your consideration under consent. >> all right. is there any member of the public who would like to pull item five, six or seven off of our consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner koppel? >> move to approve items five, six and seven. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to continue -- excuse me, to approve with conditions, items five, six and
seven under your consent calendar, -- [roll call] >> move, commissioners. that places us under commission matters, item eight, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for february 22, to 18. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner fong? >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for february 22, 2018 -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places us on item nine, commission comments and questions.
>> commissioners? >> interestingly enough in this morning's "chronicle" in the business section, page one, the headline caught me connecting citizens with city hall. and i thought wow, let me read this article. it sounds kind of neat and it was about this company called excella. i believe it is the excellas that we contracted with for online building permitting and planning and there's 2,000 municipalities now using excella and doing an off the shelf version so i can't wait on april 123 -- april 12, to see how the project is going with us. >> all right. jonas, we can move to the next item. >> very good. department matters, item 10, director's announcements s*fj good afternoon, commissioners. no new items this week. >> item 11, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of apeels and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr. first on the land use agenda this week was a landmark
designation for the diamond heights safety wall. it is a public sculpture located on the south side of diamond heights boulevard. it's cig kanlz for its association with the redevelopment project. the planning effort led by the san francisco redevelopment agency from 1961 to 1978. the sculpture was nominated by the landmark's designation through a community-sponsored landmark application submitted on may 1 of last year. on november 1 of last year, the historic preservation commission initiated landmark designation and on december of last year, voted to unanimously recommend approval of the designation. at the land use hearing, bob pullham and members of the diamond heights community association testified in support of the designation. one member of the public who indicated he was a member of the libertarian party, testified against the designation. the supervisors had questions about ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the sculpt. -- sculptures since it has not
been maintained over the decades. there is correspondence with the real estate department to confirm and this was left unanswered. the safety wall is not currently on their maintenance plan and prior to planning outreach, d.p.w. was unaware of the safety wall. the committee voted to move the item forward to the full board without recommendation, citing the lack of clarity around who is responsible for maintenance. and requested that the information be provided to them before the hearing next tuesday. since then, planning department staff has received acknowledgment from the real estate department that the city owns the property and the d.p.w. is the president responsible for its maintenance. last on the land use agenda was the landmark designation for 2117 market street, also known as the new era hall. this building is significant as the work of a master architect and was in association with the rebuilding of san francisco after 1906. the establishment of the upper
market sfraoets as a commercial corridor and the vesalia stock saddle company, a pioneering custom saddle business. the property was initially identified in the planning process for -- planning process of market octavia plan and the h.b.c. unanimously voted to approve the landmark designation on april 18 of last year. representative from the academy of ballet, a long-time tenant of the building provided testimony in support of landmark designation. he highlighted the fact that the academy has been operating out of this building for 65 years and he hopes the property's preserved because there are a few spaces in the city that can accommodate dance staoud yosing like theirs. after public comment, committee members had a few questions about ownership and staff affirmed that they did support the designation and then forwarded the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. and then at the full board this woke, the zoning map and planning code amendment for the gearey masonic special use
district passed its second read. the jackson square s.u.d. amendments for restaurant and bar uses passed its second read and the campaign and government conduct code for the form 700 also passed its second read and that concludes my report. thank you. >> thank you. jonas, are there any other reports? >> yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye department staff here to share with you a couple of items from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. if i could get the overhead, please. the commission voted unanimously in support of its recommendation to locally designate the building at 246 first street to article 10 of the planning code. this is tla*erjs art deco industrial loft building in san francisco and it is the work of master architects myers and
clinkhart. it was added to the designation work programme in 2012 as part of the transit centre area plan rezoning e effort and this was the second hearing that the commission held so it will be fortowarded to the boyder of supervise source and scheduled at a future date and the owners are in support of the designation. one other item to mention to you is that the planning department staff was in attendance at san francisco history day this is year. we often have a table along with the historic preservation fund committee, the mayor's office of employment and workforce development and the california historical society in the same room toward the front. we always have a great response to our table and the items that we share related to the historic preservation programme. this year, we focused on the mills act programme, the legacy business programme and some of
the preservation policies and designations outlined in the central soma area plan which you will be acting on soon. i just wanted to let you know that we are always very happy to participate in history days and we'll keep you posted if any other outreach events that occur related to history days in the future. thank you. >> thank you. >> seeing no other -- >> we just have a question from commissioner rich arts. >> one question. interestingly enough mr. starr and mr. frye said something about when a landmark is designated via a work programme or community initiated one t property owner is asked whether they support it. what happens when they don't? >> there is nothing in the -- our local ordinances that prohibit the board of supervisors for taking action and landmarking a building without owner consent. however, it is always our goal to provide some sort of collaboration on landmark designations. >> thank you.
>> seeing no other questions, we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public my address the commission on items of the public that are within the jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have one speaker card for georgia szuidas. >> georgia, welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i sent you a rather bulky e-mail with some pictures from the past from 2015. everyone except commissioner johnson because she doesn't have e-mail yet. i'm sure he will soon. when she does, i will send it to her. what i sent to you if you had a chance to look at it was the photos from 2015 and commissioner richardson's game was set one a zoning administrator and mr. starr and mr. duffy to look at samples of
what were called alterations but may have been demolitions in noe valley and it was discovered that 40% probably were. and showing you some recent samples, if i may. i'll take the overhead, please. i think i showed you that one already, it's this house there. you can see it is part of a row. ok. so, here we go. there it is during the work. and ironically there is a demolition sign on it from the contractor. a demolition -- they do demolition work. here is another one. this is sort of similar. you can get the idea, though. here it is pretty much now. and they now have the screen over it. that is the same house. here's another one. here's the house as it was. it's kind of attractive if you like that style of house.
here it is during the work. the outside wall sort of slowly disappears. there's a little bit of it left and here it is pretty much today. it's kind of stalled. i don't know. maybe they're having trouble with all the materials and worker shortages. anyway, here's another one. here it is when they raised it up. there you see it. here it is during the work. they're adding the top floor there. here's another picture of it. here's the back. i didn't get that. this is on the rear of it.
here it is today. and they are finishing it up. and here's the latest one. here it is. very nice windows. if you want to replace the windows, you have a hard time. here it is under way. here's a close-up. i can't do this. i don't know. anyway, you get the idea. and here's another close-up of the foundation work there. so, what's my point? what do these all have in common? these are alterations. they are all on 24th street between noe and dolores. they did not have d.r.s. they did not go to the board of appeals. and they all have dramatic facade changes f not owe blit rations of facades and vertical
expansions. >> just a question. they were all alterations under -- >> they were listed as alterations by 311s and they were -- >> were they tantamount demolitions from planning standpoint? >> not that i'm aware of. we can talk about that next week. >> commissioner rich ardses? >> what i'd like to do honestly, i'm getting tired of seeing these every week. i've been on the commission four years and this is like the 200th time we've been seeing these. could we please, when we have a joint hearing with d.b.i., take some of these and walk through exactly what happened and go this would have been a demolition, but it is not a demolition. so, it just -- it would clear the air. there could be -- some of these may not be demolitions because there was one i reported to the zoning administrator that was a bunch of the two by fours left, but none of the walls -- those were walls. they weren't removed. but everything else was gone. i really want to -- i think for the public and for ourselves, we owe it to ourselves to really understand this a little bit better and seeing these every week not only makes me mad but also makes me curious
to how these things happen. >> and whether they were tantamount to demo. there are rules. we'll do that. ok, jonas. sorry. additional public comments. my apologies. >> hi. steven boss with mission m.b. i sent all of you an e-mail, i think it was yesterday, unfortunately not to commissioner johnson because your e-mail is not up on the website. it showed -- could i have the projector please? i've come up for the past -- this is my third week now to raise concern around the precipitous drop in the incoming application pipeline. in the third quarter of 2017, there were zero new permits filed for new residential
buildings. there were 12 filed for alterations resulting in 12 units. but in the third quarter of 2017, we saw 12 units that all came from alternations there. were no new buildings and we need to study why this is happening. i'm asking you again please direct staff to study it. the important thing on this graph is that yellow bar. it is completely gone in 2017. those are the incoming new building applications. other things, i meant to start with this, but commissioner fong. i'd like to apologize for last week when we all gave our comment and you left and i understand it's got to be frustrating to have people come in and yell at you every week and then leave and not listen to the rest of the hearing. i did watch it on sfgov tv afterwards, but i had been here for four hours and i had to get back to work. i apologize that i didn't stay
through the end of it. and i am happy that the commission advised that there be follow-up to the central soma plan. that prioritizes more housing. it's the right choice. so thank you for doing that. >> could i ask you, if i may? could i ask you to send an e-mail on that data because it is not consistent with ours. just send me that, that would be great. >> sure. you're on the website, right? >> i believe so. i'm the director. [laughter] i think you can find me pretty easily. >> john.ram@govtv. sick thought i grabbed every e-mail, but i may have missed yours. [laughter] >> if you can share with us, director ram, after you've had a chance to look at that data and confirm what the numbers are and some understanding of why they are, that would be great. >> and i think the source data, the actual source data of the part number, permit numbers, anything that you have that can
help us drill down rather than just numbers. >> right. yes. i did include my work on the e-mail that i sent to all of you. i'm sure none of you are software engineers, but, yes, i did include that. and if you look at tz the pipeline report, but if you look at the third quarter filter -- or sort by best date, you can see that all -- everything that happened in q3 2017, that's p.l. filed are very small operations. they're not new buildings. >> thank you. appreciate it. additional public comment? general public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here as a resident of bayview hunter's point. and i wanted to bring something to your attention that will probably be coming your way over the course of the next few months. but last week, about a week ago, i think, the sfpuc filed
preliminary project application for a proposed community centre at the corner of 3rd and evans. >> can we get the overhead, sfgov? you can zoom in, too. not just on your phone but on the overhead. >> anyway, they proposed this 45,000 square foot community centre on a 4.35 acre public site. at a transit note. this is to call it a wasted opportunity, i think, is an understatement. in fact, i think it is blowing about the chance of -- it is blowing, i think, an opportunity of a lifetime and, frankly, an opportunity of up to 1,000 lifetimes. the fact of the matter is that with this property, what the city needs to do and i hope the
planning department can persuade the utilities commission to do this is look at a multiuse site. yes, we need a community centre over there to replace the southeast facility. at the same time, we need hundreds of units of affordable housing. we need a grocery store and other public use or other community uses at that very, very important corner. ash it is functioning like the agency that it always has been, a top-down engineering focus of this is what we want to, this is how you're going do it and we're going to ask you to clap for it. clap harder if you don't think this is a good idea. so, as this gets this plan and proposal develops over the next few months, next few years, who knows how long it will take them to do they've never done anything on time in the first place. but as it unfolds, i certainly hope that the staff and the commission can really take it upon themselves to knock some
sense into this infrastructure agency and show them what planning actually means. thank you. >> thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we can move to the regular calendar. >> very good, commissioner. that places us under your regular calendar for item 12 case number 2018-000681pca. this is a planning code amendment, hours of operation for limited nonconforming uses. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the commission. jonathan disalvo, planning department staff. we want to allow limited nonconforming uses in r.h., r.m., r.t.d. zoning districts to operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. with conditional use authorization. the origin of this amendment came from a conditional use
authorization hearing that took place in october of 2017 for the legalization of a nonconforming event and performance art venue located at 3359 cesar chavez street. the project sought the ability to stay open until midnight, but the planning committee did not allow the hours to extend beyond 10:00 p.m. n. this specific case, the venue proposed to have nighttime event and art performances which typically go beyond 10:00 p.m. the commission considered the existing limitation on the hours of operation to be a restriction on the project. at the hearing, the commission asked the department to consider allowing for the extension of hours of operation for nonconforming uses. to date, the department has not received any public comment regarding the proposed planning code amendment. amending the planning code to provide a pathway for the extension of hours for limited nonconforming uses from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. will meet the commission's directive. it will also provide a means for the commission to review the extension of hours of projects on a case-by-case
basis via the conditional use authorization process. i'd like to note that the initiation does not involve a decision on the substance of the amendments, it merely begins the require 20ed-day notice period after which you, the commission, may hold a hearing and take action on the proposed planning code amendment. the staff recommendation is to schedule an adoption hearing for no sooner than april 19, 2018 due to central soma plan proceedings scheduled for the planning commission hearing on april 12, 2018. this concludes staff presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner moore? >> move to initiate. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate as well as schedule an adoption hearing on or after april 19, 2018. on that motion -- [roll call]
is move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places us on item 13 for case number 2017-014297pca, planning code corrections ordinance. these are amendments to the planning code. >> commissioners, before we start, i'd like to introduce you to a staffer you have not met. david broski. he joined the department in june of 2016 where he was assigned to the zoning and compliance division originally. previously he worked as an intern with the richmond planning department while attending san jose state. while working in richmond, he reviewed applications ranging from new single-family homes in historic districts to conditional use permits for restaurants and mobile food facilitieses and most importantly assisted with the implementation of the iron triangle walkable plan. we welcome david. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the
commission. david broski, planning department staff. the item before you is the 2018 planning code amendment to correct errors and update outdated reference and improve the general plan of the article itself. it will help overlooked items within the cannabis ordinance. the majority of these amendments are not considered substantive. there are, however, two which are. the first is the proposed amendment to section 145.4 that would allow an exception to the ground floor commercial use in the c-30 and c2 districts. the second is from the cannabis ordinance which would remove duplicative noticing units. although the change is considered consistent with the intent of the recently adopted cannabis regular leighs, the failure to remove this position was a drafting error. at this time, the planning z. asking the commission only to initiate these code amendments, which begins the required
20-day notice period after which the commission may hold a hearing and take action on the code amendments. staff's recommendation is to initiate the proposed ordinance and schedule a public hearing to consider adoption on april 19, 2018. this concludes staff's presentation. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> let's see if there is any general public comment on this item. any public comment. sorry. seeing none, commissioner richards? >> move to initiate and schedule a hearing for april 19. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to initiate and schedule an adoption hearing on or after april 19, 2018 -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. 7-0. places us on item 14 for case number 2015-000644env.
the biosolids digester facilities project certification of the final environmental impact report. please note that the public hearing on the draft e.i.r. is closed. the public comment period for the draft e.i.r. ended on june 19, 2017. public comment will be received at this time. however, comment submitted may not be included in the final e.i.. -- e.i.r. >> good afternoon, president hillis. members of the commission. i'm tim johnston from the planning department's environmental planning division. the item before you is the certification of a final environmental impact report. for the proposed biosolids digester facilities project which is sponsored by the san francisco public utilities commission, or sfpuc. as requested, a representative of the sfpuc is here today to provide you with a brief overview of the project description. so i would like to invite
caroline chu up to go over that with you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carolyn c hubsinger and i'm the project manager for this bioproject. this is the largest capital project in p.u.c. sewer system improvement programme. can i -- this project will address the aging infrastructure and outdated technology at our southeast waste water treatment plant, which is a critical infrastructure since it provides over 80% of the city's sewage and storm water treatment. in this promise, we will be fully replacing the solids portion of the plant, which is
outlined in yellow and replacing it with a new facility adjacent to the plant which is outlined in the blue in the bottom figure. that will be comprised of existing southeast plant, central shops which is the city's current fleet management facility and a decommissioned asphalt plant. here's a aerial of the site. you will see that it is a pretty busy side. you have cal-transon the left hand page of the slide and the decommissioned asphalt plant on the bottom of the page. and then the central shops in the parcel of north of gerald. the proposed site is surround by industrial and commercial businesss to the southeast plant. in consideration of the neighbours, to minimize traffic near the project site, we have proposed that construction workers park their personal vehicles off site and shuttle
in during the course of the construction. we also anticipate closing a portion of gerald, the area of gerald for the blue figure there to really for worker and public safety to facile tate this huge, heavy construction job. and identified some alternate routes. in addition, we are hiring a site-wide construction manager to help co-ordinate the p.u.c. construction in the vicinity. at tend of the key features, these new facilities will apply the latest technologies. so through that more efficient and effective fraoement, i'm going to be able to provide treatment with less digesters. currently we have nine of them and in the new figure, you'll see that there is only five. the level and treatment would improve from what we call a class-b level of treatment to class-a that opens us up to
more beneficial use, meaning we can use it for agricultural purposes. lastly, we are going to achieve a level of service goal, which is limiting odours from this facility to within the plant fence line. here's just a massive diagram of the new layout. you'll see those five symmetrical tanks on the top of the page. those are the digesters and we located them adjacent to the railroad tracks, furtherest from the neighbours. along the edge of gerald we made sure to put our maintenance building. so to have a more friendly front to the public. and then on the -- also on the other side around quinn street,
that is where the energy recovery facility is. that little triangle to the left. and here's just an aerial view of the proposed architecture. so you'll see there's gerald. those are the two maintenance buildings i talked about and see the digesters in the background. i think that is the end of my presentation. thank you so much. i'm going to turn the podium back to tim. >> thank you, carolyn. so, before you is a copy of the draft e.i.r. certification motion as reviewed by the city attorney's office. the draft e.i.r. was published on may 23rd, 2017. a public hearing on the draft was held before the planning commission on june 1, 2017. public comment was closed on june 19, 2017. the response was published and distributed on february 23rd, 2018. evaluation of the issues contained in the e.i.r. did
find that implementation of the project would directly result in significant effects. most of which can be mitigated to the a less than significant level. however, the e.i.r. also found that the project could contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality and cultural resources, even with the implementation of mitigation measures as listed under item seven of the draft certification motion. due to the project's cig cants and unavoidable impacts, the sfpuc would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the california viernlttal quality act. should the p.u.c. choose to approve the project. with that, staff recommendations that you adopt the motion before you and certifies that the contents of the report are adequate and accurate and the procedures through which the final e.i.r. was prepared provide with the provisions of ceqa and chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code.
this concludes my presentation unless commissioners have any questions. >> all right. we may. let's open it up first for public comment. any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners and staff leadership. i'm michael janus of the san francisco wholesale produce market. we're long-time adjacent neighbourhoods. the san francisco market partnering with the city has operated in our bayview hunter's point neighbourhood since 1963. we've recently been designated by the city as a legacy business. the market's 30 mer xhanlt businesses and over 850 team members every evening bring healthy, fresh-tasting produce to the san francisco residents and bay area businesses. we function not only as a critical piece of healthy food infrastructure for the city but also as an incubator for threatened industrial small
food bys and as job creators. the market adds value to the city's social service network through a number of programmes such as our food recovery programme which prevents fresh, healthy produce from going to waste and rather goes into vulnerable san franciscans' diets. as i said at the draft e.i.r. hearing last year, the market supports the goals of this project as an advocate for an improved waste water treatment facility. it is in that spirit that i share two main points today. one, the san francisco market has struggled for years with the conflict between our operations and public vehicles that run through the market and the p.u.c.'s proposal to routs their construction trucks through the market runs counter to our core goal of improving safety. yes, there will be fewer cars, but there will be large construction trucks that are on tight schedules running at very, very tight intervals through the market during peak hours. two, we have offered to demolish a building on our
property and terminate two of our subleases to make innis avenue available as a truck haul route for the p.u.c. construction traffic. this is a two-block-long city street barely unused. leaving it unused while pushing truck traffic through the neighbourhood is a significant wales of available resources. over the last 18 months, since six months for the publication of the draft e.i.r., we have tried repeatedly to engage productsively with p.u.c. staff in conversations about how and when this underutilized, city-wide way may be put to play to reduce the traffic impacts in our community. doing so would reduce the number of trucks traveling along evans avenue, a main east-west thorough fare for the neighbourhood and reduce the safety hazards of construction trucks traveling through the market. we sadly had a member of our market family killed in september in a traffic accident. i realise i'm out of time.
most disappointingly and sadly the results of all these meetings from 2016 until last month, before you is a document that is silent in every way on utilizing innis avenue as ans a sthaet could be used during this project. and in the published responses to comments the p.u.c. sates that when gerald avenue is closed due to the market's construction project, the p.u.c. will redirect their trucks on to the neighbourhood [inaudible] that are already proposing to use -- >> thank you, mr. janus. all right. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is dan doat. i'm a bayview resident for over 30 years, business owner and chair of the bayview community planning office. in reviewing the responses to comments and the larger e.i.r., i'm reminded of the early discussions when planning this project and a commitment to the triple bottom line.
financial, environmental and social. i have no doubt that the financial side of things and the cost of the $4 billion promise have been fully evaluated. i'm not sure, however, that there's been a commitment to the two other elements. the environment of this project is not limited to the footprint of the plant. yet the review of the transportation and traffic impacts seem to be narrowly focused on just this project. there is no plan to mitigate or to deal with these impacts of traffic and transportation. the larger environment here is comprised of neighbourhoods and is no longer solely an industrial area. it is a variety of neighbourhoods, of people who have responsibilities, work and families, of professionals who make their way to work within and beyond the area. of parents who take their kids to school and back, rate payers to the p.u.c., just like the rest of san francisco. the p.u.c. is in a privileged position here. as the fund willing flow, the water and sewer lines will only
-- suzanne weather rates will only increase over the years and the project is on its way. yet with privilege comes great responsibility to get it right for the bayview. all the neighbourhoods and to the people directly impacted by the project. there is much in the e.i.r. regarding the odour controls and seismic upgrades and overarching benefits of completing this much-desired and needed work. that is not in dispute. but other key elements do not pass the smell test. commissioners, with all due respect, you cannot good conscience certify this e.i.r. now without using your power and influence to require a fully vetted, well-planned, environmentally and socially-responsible traffic and transportation strategy and implementation plan and related vigorous study of any and all air quality violations which will -- will -- will impact and occur as a result of this
project. these contingency strategies must be in place prior to the certification of the e.i.r. this is the commitment made for years and certainly in the past number of months to this community. the people of bayview, your fellow citizens, parentses, rate payers and those just passing through desefrk your leadership. this e.i.r. is too early to certify. and if we do nothing to improve the results and the challenge of the conclusions drawn, then we're comply sit in compromising the health and safety of the bayview residents. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is mark clayman, the owner of pet camp. located at 525 help street directly across. pet camp has been serving san francisco families for about 20 years. we are located where we are because we needed to be in an m1 or m2 zone and 200 feet from
the nearest r zone which greatly emits the available properties to us. we always understood that being across from the southeast plant would impact us, but we never thought that the construction at the southeast plant so readily. we've been active for the full 20 years we've been there. i've served on various commissioners, including the digester task force. our clients need to be able to drive to us and park close and safely. our kleins come to us with dogs, cats and children. it's a very narrow street and [inaudible] [coughing] we want the project implemented on the least possible intrusive way. part of the goal is to lessen the impact the community. but it is done with disregards to the needs of that very community. the response to comments for the draft e.i.r. don't really respond to our needs.
they simply hired a construction manager as ways to deal with mitt investigation prior -- sorry, to mitigate the traffic impact but they should really think about mitigation before approving the draft e.i.r. they speculated that driving gerald would decrease traffic but also limit how long gerald is closed. i'm not sure how they can conclude closing gerald will help it if we don't know how long it will be closed. and lastly they say that the lack of parking for local businesses is no longer considered when evaluating a draft e.i.r. that must be legally correct but it is not way to treat your neighbours. it seems a shame that the p.u.c. is alienating those very neighbourhoods because the p.u.c. isn't willing to listen to our concerns about safe traffic patterns. i hope the p.u.c. doesn't need to revisit their traffic patterns after someone gets hurt. thank you so much. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item?
seeing none, we'll open it up to commissioner comments and questions. anybody? i'm happy to start. i appreciate the concerns that some folks brought up. kevin -- clearly this is a project that is long overdue and needs to happen. this is adjacent to a residential neighbourhood as well as the p.d.r. uses that we heard about. and it is much needed and i applaud p.u.c. for doing this and moving it along. no doubt there is going to be some traffic impact and construction during this project. it is a massive project. but i think the e.i.r. has, before us, adequately addresses those concerns. no doubt we have to continue to work with p.u.c. the produce market has taken a great step in closing a street so that the produce market can have better access in vacating that street. which no doubt impacts the neighbours, too.
i think for this project, the e.i.r. before us is adequate and we should certify it. commissioner moore? >> there are two issues. one is embracing the new facility which really brings us into the 21st century in terms of biomoll is. -- biosolids. this is a community that has been seriously affected for so many years by the existing plant. so, my ears are wide open to hear the concerns and think about them. it is very difficult when you have a highly technical project driving as fast as this needs to, given the costs and incredible construction timeframe. on the other hand, the lives of people in the neighbourhood remain the same. irrespective of what's behind the fence. and i do hear the concerns about traffic. i hear the concerns about cultural resources and i hear the effect on the community, which has existed since the original r.s.p. for the project, which is at least six or eight years ago.
and while i support us moving technically forward in doing the right thing relative to sewage treatment, it doesn't answer my ache about those issues which i haven't encompassed answering community concerns. >> commissioner melgar? >> i'd like to support this project. and i am concerned with traffic impacts, though i feel like the environmental document that we got adequately addresses it. i would just say also that this is long, long overdue. for this community, it is long overdue for the earth. i take seriously what is coming out of that treatment plan will be much friendly easier and leave, you know, a better footprint for us as a city on the earth than what is coming out right now.
and that has long-lasting impact for generations to come. so, i'm glad that this is finally happening and i'm happy to move it forward. >> there a motion, commissioners? >> i move that we approve this. >> second. >> there's nothing further, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the final environmental impact on that report. on that motion in. -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 15 for case number 2016-007850env at 88 broadway and 735 davis street. this is an appeal of the preliminary negative declaration. commissioners, we received a request from the appellant to dhonlt matter one week. the reason for his request is that he has knew moanian and is
in the hospital. but that is all i have for you. >> all right. and that came through a call, right? >> through a phone call as well as an e-mail from the appellant. >> ok. is there any -- he was representing the congregation or the -- the conference at st. peter and paul church. is there anybody else here from that organization? nope. so, commissioners, i say we move forward if we want to continue, we can make a motion to continue. but we probably should hear this item unless there is objection and you want to hear the continuance first. all right. seeing none, we'll take up the item and hear from the planning staff first and then if there is anybody here representing the apellant, we can hear from them and then the project sponsor. >> all right. good afternoon, president hillis and members of the commission.
i'm jenny delumo project manager for the proposed project. joining me is chelsea fordham, principle environmentletal planner and members of the project sponsor team are also present. the item before you is an appeal of the preliminary negative declaration. you should have before your packet containing the execktive summary, draft motion, exhibits to the draft motion and the amended p.m.d. and initial study. the project that is bounded by broadway to the south, vallejo south to the north, front street to the west and davis street to the east in the north beach neighbourhood. the site is within the c-2 community business zoning district, the waterfront special use district number three and the northeast waterfront landmark district. the proposed project would remove the two surface parking lots on the site which provide 180 public parking spaces and crux two affordable housing
buildings with 178 dwelling units. the buildings would be approximately 65 feet tall at the front street property line and step down to approximately 45 feet tall at the davis street property line. in addition to residential uses, the project would include commercial space, a daycare centre, common open space and three loading zones. no off-street parking is proposed. a p.m.d. in an initial study were published on october 25, 2017. an appeal was timely filed on november 27, 2017 by mark bruno of the st. vincent depaul conference at saints peter and paul church. the apel land's primary concerns are that the p.m.d. in the initial study did not add quatzly analyze transportation impaxes, including those due to taxi and transportation network trips with potential increase in miles traveled. the appeal letter includes
concerns about cumulative construction impacts. this is provided in exhibit a of the draft motion. as noted in the appeal packet, the p.m.d. and initial study did adequately analyze cumulative transportation impax and determine that these impacts would be less than significant. the cumulative impacks analysis took into consideration past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects within a quarter mile radius of the project site. this analysis included the cumulative projects raised by the apel land t project at lot 323 and 324 and the museum project at 940 battery street. the transportation network project and the transportation network projects in the vicinity of the project site. in additionally, cumulative impacts, including those related to construction, were analyzed in all 18 environmentally topics in the initial study and was determined that the project would not contribute considerably to accumulative impact.
since publication of the initial study, the project sponsors, in coordination with the department, made revisions to the project design. these revisions were made in response to public comments and comments from the architectural review committee of the historic preservation commission and the port of san francisco water designed a vie sorry committee. the revisions include reconfiguration of the massing to include setbacks of the broadway facade and portions of the front street facade. using brick on portions of the facade instead of cement board and using a more proportional window pattern. these visions result in two one-bedroom units changing to two studio units and changing to a three-bedroom unit. on march 2, 2018, the appellant saenlt memo to commission members with corrections to the project description provided in the appeal packet. the correction are that the
proposed project would be 191,000 square feet, instead of 191,300 square feet and that the setbacks along broadway and portions of front street would be at the sixth floor rather than the fifth floor. we also want to note that since publication of the packet on march 1, the planning department has received more than 30 comments in support of the project and an opposition to the appeal. these have been forwarded to the commission members. per ceqa guideline, an environmental impact report is prepared if there is substantial evidence that the project either individually or cumulatively may cause a significant, adverse effect on the physical environment. the appellant failed to provide any substantial evidence that it would have a significant impact on the physical environment. necessitating the preparation of an environmental impact report. the p.m.d. and initial study provides substantial evidence that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. therefore, preparation of the report is not required.
for the reasons described above, we recommend that the planning commission adopt the motion to hold the p.m.d. this concludes my presentation. i'm available should you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i'm jon stewart of the jon stewart company and joined here on my right by marie deboer of bridge housing. we're the co-general managers of this project. lou olson is here also along with a cast of thousands supporting this project. we have been at this thing for three years. we've had an -- i think we've had the mother of all out reaches, 23 public meetings. this is the 24th. we have a traveling road show.
i'll try to keep this crisp. all the comments that we've gotten, not all of them, but the predominant theme of the comments that we got from the neighbourhood, we've had many, many meetings. had to do with massing and finistration and cladding which we've dealt with at some length. i note that when we started this process, we wanted to not take advantage of the density bonus and go to nine stores so we said let's stay with 65 feet. let's stay within code and go for no variances. indeed, on the north side of the promise on davis, we're less than the allowable six story, we're at four storis so we taper down. with all due respect to the design issues, i think sometimes we've overlooked what i consider to be a really out
standing public policy initiative by our former mayor, ed lee. and that is the most staff that have done a single job on this because they recognize add couple of things that have been overlooked in the discussion on affordable housing. most deals wrap around 4% and private activity bonds with a cohort, having incomes and not beyond 60% of the area median. that is the cluster. that mayor and his staff said we're going to go beyond that. we're going to deal with, finally, in one project, people who have been formerly homeless and provide 20% permanent housing for that co-horts and we're going to do it also with another cohort of 100% to 120% of median of the so-called missing middle.