notification, the 20-day review and circulation time is consistent with requirements and those in chapter 31 of the san francisco and administrative code. the project is not a statewide, regional, or area wide significance. therefore, it does not require a 30-day review time or circulation to any other agency. violence and commenters also raised non-ceqa issues, including the potential socioeconomic change results megaprojects, the effects on property values, and whether the project requires preparation of an institutional master plan. these issues are related to the merits of the project and are for the commission's consideration during the next item. ceqa documents do not advocate the approval or disapproval of a project. rather, they described and disclose the physical and environmental effects of the project. the department analyzed the physical and environmental effects and determined that it cannot have a significant effect on the environment and

subsequently issued a pmdd. the comment letters to not raise any new physical or environmental issues that were not already described in the pmnd. staff believes no substantial evidence of an environmental effect has warranted preparation of an eir. therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the motion to uphold a decision to publish unmitigated negative declaration but your packets contain a draft motion to that effect. by upholding the pmnd, planning commission does not prejudge our restrict its ability on the uses are designed to consider if it is appropriate for the neighborhood. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. i am the senior and burnie -- members of the project team are also here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. we will hear from the appellant at this time.

>> good morning, commissioners. my name is steven hammond. i represent the cal hallow association and other appellants. i will keep my comments brief. others wished to speak on behalf of the community. i would like to first make a point about the notice period. 20 days was inadequate. the proper time was 30 days. there is no dispute that over $ 2 million of this project is coming from the federal funds, and an analysis is required. in fact, a considerable environmental assessment impact report to hud was prepared, and yet, there was no notification to hud or any other federal agencies so that these

documents could be coordinated with one another. i would also like to point out that this is on highway 101, and caltrans does have jurisdiction over this area. there were also not notified. finally, the historic elements of this property has not been addressed by the state's office of historic preservation. rather, the project sponsor has made an assessment of no historic value, and that assessment has been echoed by the department. in light of that, it seems strange that this application and pmnd not be submitted to the state office for historic preservation for potential comment. i would then like to move on to the issue of -- a this project

as a test case in light and in support of this type of housing. it is undisputed that the mayor's office of housing has funded this project before. the completion of the entitlement and ceqa process. it is also beyond dispute that this has been carried out pursuant to those housing guidelines, and those facts create an inference of a larger intend to use this model to create additional affordable housing opportunities for the city along these lines. as such, there should be an additional analysis with regard to the project aspect of this particular plan. finally, i would like to point

out to the commissioners, the issues raised in the environmental letter attached to our appeal. they addressed several issues related to noise and health. geotechnical issues and growth in dues meant that i think particularly persuasive. at the commissioners have any questions, i am happy to address them. otherwise i will see you -- [inaudible] thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am charles. [unintelligible] i am san francisco resident. i have been here 61 years, as my grandparents and parents so lived here. since i first became aware of this project year-ago in april, april 2010, there has been

absolutely no compromise on the part of the developer to reduce overcrowding of the proposed public housing tenant. this is an environmental impact requiring an eir under state administrative regulations. i brought the regulations to the attention of staff a year ago when i rode a great length about certain deficiencies of this project. the section i advise you to observe, and perhaps get some guidance from council on, is 14ccr, section 15064. it says, basically, an environmental impact report is needed when the tenants of a public-housing project are exposed to overcrowding conditions. there are many alternate

properties in this area that have the suitable housing for the proposed use. there are apartment buildings and so on it that are available, and there's no reason to waive the requirement for a full on environmental impact report in this case. president olague: we will go ahead and grant another five minutes. that would be five minutes for the total appellant, so however you want to divide that. >> thank you. all right, we have touched on the historical side of things. the historic matters were not sent to the historic preservation commission and the architectural review board. it has been sidetracked, just like the developer did not look for the alternates in the area, he also sidetracked the historic side of things. there are a multitude of issues associated with overcrowding. i do not think that we have a

group housing here. we do not have a common dining facilities that will serve 25 units. we do not have common areas. they are seeking exemption from common areas and open space by way of the zoning change. and i do not believe that this is good social policy or a policy consistent with your responsibilities as commissioners to uphold the planning and zoning laws of the city and county of san francisco. they're asking you to abandon the productions afforded to the community and to the public housing tenants in favor of private development here. let me skip to one salient point. this developer has been cited by the building department for doing the exterior trenching and excavation work without a permit. the building inspector presently seeks access to the interior of the building to see what war, if

any, has been performed without a building permit. this in permitted construction activity raises significant environmental issues because access in the interior is being denied. is there a proper foundation work under way? is there lead paint the basement under way? i do not believe that this commission should act until these issues are strained out with the building department. in conclusion on the ceqa matters, the appropriate standard has been met by the admissible showing made in the neighborhood. there is substantial evidence of facts supporting a fair argument that the proposed project's environmental impacts require the public process associated with the preparation of a complete environmental impact report. this would give the opportunity

to the community to get the input over this project. right now, it is a black box. we have no idea what rules and regulations these tenants live under. it is not a drug-free house. it is not a sober house. it is not a liquor-free house. we have serious concerns about the governance of this project. it does not seem reasonable to allow such a height and density. 25 blowing units are being requested. there is enough room in each dwelling unit for two inhabitants. so there you have 50 inhabitants here from time to time, or perhaps all the time. i submit to you that this project is built-conceived, and without proper control, -- is ill conceived, and without proper control, it should be denied. thank you very much for your time today. president olague: thank you. we will open it up to public

comment. it is limited to two minutes. i ask that those to come forward limit the comments only to the appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. jennifer smith, followed by holly hays, jeff, holden, howard squires. is there any an additional public comment at this time? anyone whose name i called, please come to the microphone at this time. and if you're standing up, i ask you at this time to relocate to room 416, the overflow room, and of this hearing is being televised, and we will give you time it your name is called later in the hearing to come up and speak. >> i am holly hays, but i would like to speak on the next item, please. president olague ok, thank you.

>> it does not have to be in order, does it? i am howard, from scott street. we built the building across the street, finished in 2010. i've spent a lot of time looking at this and have a couple of issues. one is, i feel that the evaluation was done based on 24 occupants. the facility under group housing allows for two persons per room. the project sponsor has indicated clearly that they will allow guests, overnight guests, at a minimum of half a month. so if this was evaluated using 24 awlaki pins and other could be potentially 48 occupants, because there could be two beds in each room, i believe that

this could have a significant effect on the evaluation, and it should be reconsidered. additionally, i have a lot of concerns about crime and urban decay that this might bring. i conducted my own research in this area to the term -- determine what real effects this project might have on the neighborhood. i contacted community housing partnership, and the director b2 864 ellis. the project houses 24,000 trances and all age youth 80 to 24 in a group housing setting with market street providing services. this is the only project i am aware of in a san francisco of its size. sounds like i am running out of time. but i have included in my e- mails to you the police reports in comparison to the edward. i thought it was relatively glaring. it concerns me. i do not think there has been any mitigation is to address

this. my belief is that this age group should not be housed -- it is like a dormitory. thank you. president olague: brooke and steven. >> commissioners, my name is brooke, a member of the advisory board. i am going to speak of the public property adjoining a digital historic district. the existence of a potential california register eligible pacific heights historic district, between britain jackson street -- greenwich and jackson streets. in 2007, the senior planner wrote the inquiry on 2626 filbert street, which i came before you on. it is three blocks from edward

ii. this is him. it is true that the building is not within a designated historic district, but the area falls within an area which we found to be a potential historic district, which would qualify as a historic resourced for the ceqa guidelines. we have not established boundaries of what the potential district, but it is a flag for us to the parties in this area extra scrutiny. in 2008, regarding the 2626 filbert case, the potentially california registered eligible district is roughly located between greenwich and a jackson street and lyon and steiner streets. this abuts the property in question. in the july 7, 2011 exhibit a pmnd, planning staff determined that the proposed group housing project would not result in any impact to adjacent historic resources. yet the project site adjoins the

prodigious california register pacific heights historic district. in addition, the boundaries of the association at a joint the project site. it appears specific to the greenwich, including the north- south streets between greenwich and lombard. a critical step is the secretary of interior standards and guidelines for historic preservation. they state that the historic research -- president olague: thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i am jeff. i would actually like to speak on number 6. president olague: ok. if you have already spoken, the new -- yeah, if anyone who has not spoken with like to speak to this item, the appeal of the pmnd, please come to the

microphone at this time. and anyone standing up, again, i would like to direct you to room 416, where we have an overflow room. and again, limit your comments, please, to the appeal of the pmnd. >> hello. i have lived in the marina district for 30 years. i have been an indicator for 40 years and have worked with students from middle school to universities. the lowest to the highest academic ability and athletic ability. my question is, how does this benefit the children that they are planning to pile into this unit? how does this benefit them, piling them into an inappropriate building that is going to cost $9 million to renovate? first it was going to be 25 kids. there was going to be overnight guests. now is two in a room. have you looked at this building? i have been then -- i have been there when i was used as a bed

and breakfast. the rooms are like closets. there's no public space, no outdoor space. these are at-risk youth. there will not be enough supervision. the dumping them into a neighborhood or they will not be able to afford to shop, to eat, to socialize. this is the most inappropriate situation for these kids. there are other buildings in the area that we have offered that would be way more appropriate for these kids. there would be better settings for them, better management for them. this is the worst thing i have seen. the sro across the street, the bridge motel, we have been fighting there for decades. the city attorney has to sue, and nothing has been done. there's crime, drugs, prostitution and diagonally across the street. there are problems in the bars. we finally got all these sleazy bars out of the neighborhood, and now we have a decent place for our 20-something kids to come on the weekend. this is going to load 50 to 100 kids or at-risk with no supervision into this

neighborhood. to me, it really seems ill- advised. and if you put this through, i want to know, who is benefiting from this? and a wife and $9 million renovation when this could be done for much less? thank you. president olague and i am going to stop the hearing and tell those people standing up will relocate to room 416. if you're not speaking, please relocate. otherwise, we're not going to -- yes, if you're standing by in this room, you should be in room 416, not here. call the sheriff to escort them out. and please, you will have the opportunity to speak to the project. it will be the next item. only in the mid your comments,

please come to the appeal of the pmnd. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is david, 36-year resident of california kahlo with my family. i am one of many hundreds in a neighborhood to support a policy of encouraging transitional aid to housing and to also support a policy of the sound physical governments. the project at 3155 scott street is not a genuine pay project in the sense of being editorially transitional. all occupants of the project would become a 10 and under san francisco as rent control ordinance. that ordinance prohibits asking a tenant or requiring a tenant to vacate the premises once a year she has reached a certain age. so this project is disingenuously called a transitional age youth project. it is not. there's no legal right to make any of the occupants move once they reach a certain age. the location, size, zoning, over crown the -- overcrowding,

profit generating, and other circumstances that the associations have would that make this project unfeasible and deleterious to the neighborhoods surrounding it. if you are looking at it from the standpoint of fiscal policy, it would be completely unsupportable. the cost of the project was originally estimated to be $2 million. it is now up to a minimum of $9.1 million. virtually all of the money will be coming from the city and county of san francisco. for our city at this point to lay out in excess of $9.1 million for 24 single room occupancy units is unjustifiable. it is my hope and also the hope of all residents in the area that this commission will reach a decision with an open mind and will not simply rubber-stamp this project because the city has already and i'm wisely invested substantial sums. thank you.

>> my name is christina. i am also a longtime resident of the marina area and would like to let you know that the neighbors have looked into the historical site files. they have looked into the micro fish. there were no permits in these files with the changes for the outside of the building. therefore, we cannot consider or work with this, and i would like to suggest denying the project. thank you. >> my name is michelle. and i live at greenwich and scott. i feel that this project impacts my environment in two ways. my backyard is exposed to the

property, and every time i walked around the corner, i walk past the property. and i feel, in the year that it has been taken over by the housing project, it has been dirty and unkept. i walked by weeds up to my hips almost today walking to this hearing, and they have some caretakers in the property, supposedly, but there is garbage in the entryway, and i am not sure that they can manage the youth, if they cannot manage the property without any youth there. so thank you. president olague: if we're speaking to the appeal of the pmnd. is there any additional public comment to speak to this item in particular? we keep hearing comments about

the project. you'll have an opportunity later in the hearing to speak to the project. >> good afternoon. my name is lydia, on staff at the mayor's project of housing. i want to speak to one item brought up by the appellant law partners. specifically the claims of the national environmental protection act review was required for this project due to the presence of federal funds in the project. i wanted to clarify that, indeed, this project was funded only with local funds. the decision to do so was made because of the deadlines that we were facing to acquire the project under the purchase and sale agreement for the property. originally, we were intending to use federal funds, but when it became clear that the review would not be complete in time, we withdrew those federal funds and used only local funds. you will see reference in some

of your materials to the analysis, but i wanted to clarify that that analysis was never submitted ketubah hud for approval. it was withdrawn. thank you. president olague: thank you. was there additional public comment? >> my name is patricia. it was mentioned -- and nothing was mentioned concerning ada. they have been required to have four ada rooms. unfortunately, the drawings showed that the rooms are not in compliance.

if you notice in the accessibility rooms, the bathrooms have or you can come in and come straight. but according to federal and state law and city law, you have to have a space between the toilet and the sink for the wheelchair to go back so that they can lift themselves on to the toilet, and it just is not there. also, there is no ada on the third floor. and according to the law, there should be compliance, at least access, to the third floor. there's nothing worse than a young 20-year-old being on the second floor, hearing a party of their friends on the third floor. nepa should be considered because it supersedes the state, and they have been trying to avoid this. there was an application to the

feds, and they actually said you did the wrong -- what you get out to the public, proposals, and you did it the wrong way, and you'll have to reapply. some of the went to another angle to try and find money -- president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? >> thank you. marks all in them -- marc solomon here. their two issues that were concerned. one was the fact that the scud would be one of many. there is a unique situation which there was a request by some that actually gave their property to the city and county of san francisco. how many folks in the marina are going to bequeath their property to an affordable housing project to make the neighborhood better? i do not see any hands. this is a wide-of thing.

it is a special gift. i think we should do that. the building will not be expanding its envelope to speak of, so there were no additional impact there. second, this was the tourist hotel, bed and breakfast, with people from europe coming here and partying in san francisco for a weekend. can we really expect additional and back on the community will be that different from having a tourist hotel versus having a hotel helping out some of the most of vulnerable folks in the city? thank you. i urge you to reject the appeal. president olague: thank you. any additional comment? >> as with the vice president of the marine a community association. in regards to the ceqa appeal, i want to reference the speaker who said this was a request to the city. that is not the case. it is a sale of the property for multiple millions of dollars. a gentle man who owed in the bird back taxes about them waved during the sale. quite a sweetheart deal, not the warm hearted feeling that was mentioned. but in terms of ceqa and

environmental impacts, this is on the lombard street, which is the 101 highway that runs to the city of san francisco. during peak traffic hours, the road is completely backed up in both directions, coming into this city or leaving the city. the amount of emissions and noise that comes from this area, either when cars are driving by or the amount of gas and fumes coming into the air while you are sitting in your room, it really leaves -- with leavesno open space happening. but if you cannot even open the window because the teams are coming in and it is so noisy with traffic, i have a feeling that in the entire city of san francisco, there are other buildings that exist that have a rear yard. even if they had a rear yard, they're not on the freeway. while these hazards to not reach a level of significance to where someone might