10 minutes. secretary avery: commissioners are taking a 10-minute recess.

easier ways of moving as it relates to working with neighborhood groups and trying to work towards certain goals and the greater good for the city and none of us have an agenda other than to try to live in a more livable city. to the extent that we can work together on some of the other orphan blocks and ceqa reform and if we could work on it together, then great.

so thank you. thank you for all your work on this. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions and concerns. anmarie, i have a question for you, please. thanks. part of many of the things that are in here, i think everyone agrees with. but there are a couple of things that the division of dwelling units. i think we talked about that and what happened was on market octavia, there was a hybrid that applies from the safeway west, i guess, and where they don't have the open ability to create unlimited number of units within the framework. in other words, they need to abide more by the particular zoning and that being rh-2 or rh-3 or whatever it is. am i correct about that? >> yes. commissioner antonini: that is what we're saying is going to be in here is the consensus has been we don't want that

unlimited -- it's not unlimited, but more or much less restrictive ability to chop into smaller and smaller units in the area. >> the larger market octavia plan has a two bedroom requirement and certain areas that are closer to the block that we're talking about with this legislation that impose additional controls on dwelling units and in addition to what you discussed also, this area adjacent to the block is a rear yard requirement that starts at the first floor of the dwelling unit. first floor with with the dwelling unit. commissioner antonini: thank you. i think that's very important to show that we do have different hybrid situations or at least some within the market octavia plan. and i think we probably should have had some others because i have heard from quite a few members of the public that would have preferred to have had a little different situation in

particular subpartses of market octavia, mission delores and people from the triangle and others will come up and say, well, on certain aspects we would have liked to have been separate and not have the one size fits all, especially on the parking. that is my biggest concern here is that right now the parking is 1:1 requirement, but no one really wants that to continue. but i think you need some flexibility. in fact, i understand as was mentioned the castro merchants have not yet weighed in on this or are in the process of having a meeting. so an initiation might be okay, but i would be a lot more comfortable with the language if it said eliminate the 1:1 parking requirement and analyze the appropriate maximum of parking desirable for this block. i think you're going to lock yourself into a situation where there may be a three-unit situation and somebody may want to build totally compliant with

all the other things and in order to make a go of it economically, they'd have to have 1:1 parking and that can happen. and i think you're going to -- it may be too restrictive to have there or should be a matter of discussion. i would pref prefer as we move through an initiation that we initiate things but leave that as an open question. and i think that's an important part of it. and also i might point out on the market octavia, this commission passed a different type plan that was approved after the supervisors modified it. we voted, i forget the exact vote, but obviously a majority, on a parking situation that allow allowed up to 1:1 parking and as a right .75. and i might be mistaken and some to do with two bedroom or one bedroom but it was quite different than what came out in

the final product from the supervisors. and we went through years of hearings with all these different groups talking about different areas and different desires they have on this question. we tried to reach a comprise which i think we did. so to take that same and apply this to the block even though it's only one more block, i would like to hear from all the decision makers and i am just weighing in on what's before us on this. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to express my strong support for this and to be initiated and also strongly support it as an addendum to the market octavia plan including the variations approved by the board of supervisors which is implied but to keep it as an addendum is the only way to streamline it as a process rather than opening up every aspect of it again. i actually participated in the department's deliberations with

the applicants and believe that the neighborhoods, plural expression here, were well represented, well prepared, and i don't believe that they left any page unturned to come with a strong support for what they are trying to do. i do believe it is in our own interest as a commission not to get bogged down with endless discussions on projectses which are coming in because i have to assume that the owner of these projects are very much in support of streamlining the process. president miguel: i also had the pleasure of participating in the department's hearings and i was pleased to see the large representation of the neighborhood both in numbers and the groups that they represented. i believe the neighborhood in undertaking the outreach did a superb job of dealing with the residents and the businesses in the neighborhood and i know

they're continuing with the businesses. and it was a bit of a continuation of the years of the market octavia plan that were very acrimonious in the beginning, as those of us who were around in the neighborhoods at that time, un. it was pleasing to see that things have calmed down and groups have come together and they actually listen to each other and so i have very good feelings about this one. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i don't want to bog things down but i want to recognize that it is possible and i am not saying this is the case, that certain areas have different desires and maybe this block is uniform in support of what' before us and if that's the case, i think that as long as what's there meets the overall beneficial goals of the city because it's not just who lives there but all the people of the city have to weigh

in on these plans and if it's beneficial for san francisco in general and the other thing anmarie, if i might ask, if we initiate this, it is subject to modification as we move forward and of course while this would be what staff is presenting now, i think i have brought up a couple of points and certainly we can see what the consensus is if we have any testimony as to some changes in here. >> this is the proposal before you that was put forward by the community and vetted by staff by outlying this range of potential sections for amendment, you are not committing yourself to any decision. you can decide and in fact, to not amend the parking controls at the adoption hearing but setting out this as the breadth of discussion, this will allow you to amend these issue. commissioner antonini: what we're initiating is what is brought together by the group that was charged to do this or took it upon themselves and organized the community and came

forth with these recommendations. is that what i am hearing? >> that is correct and we should mention on camera for the folks that there will be a community meeting organized by the community but i don't recall the time or place. >> the community meeting organized by the neighborhood associations and the c.v.d. will be on october 25, 7:00 p.m., at the chase bank meeting room which is, i believe, the corner of 18th and castro. miguel r -- >> 15th and sanchez, 7:00 p.m., on october 25. and invitations are going out to that. commissioner antonini, all of the neighbors and the merchants and everybody will have a channel to talk about all the variations at that time. commissioner antonini: great. i appreciate that and was questioning why we're not having

the meetings completed first and the initiation second, but you have to get on the table before you can talk about it. president miguel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i want to not miss acknowledging staff in the meetings and there was a large area of expertise and at least eight or 10 people from different parts of the department coming together and speaking not as a completed fact, but whether or not it was possible to do an addendum and informed dialogue with people not passing judgment immediately and keeping it very thorough thought and i was quite impressed the way staff handled it. secretary avery: commissioners, if motion on the floor is for approval on initiation. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. secretary avery: commissioners,

you are now on item 15, case 2007.1457e for 1050 valencia street. this is a premier of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeremy bettis, environmental analysis section. the item is the appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and i appear you before this item and the proposed project at 1050 valencia street in the context as the it interfaces with properties on hill street and the historic district and this analysis has been provided within the amended mitigated negative declaration which you

will find in your packets. it sheds additional light on the historic district settings, origins and telling the history of san francisco and provides an additional appraisal of the pr posed project and whether the introduction would materially impair neighbors historic resources within the district if department's conclusions remain unchanged. the project as proposed would not relate in a significant impact to an historic resource. again, to recap, the 3,300 square foot project site at the southwest corner of valencia and hill streets is not located within any potential or established historic district. the proposed project would replace an existing commercial building with a five-story, 50-foot high, approximately 16,000 square foot building with 6 residential units over a ground floor and full service restaurant. the existing 1,700 square foot,

100-story building ormgally in use as a kentucky fried chicken is now occupied by sp orbing -- by spork restaurant. there will be no decision to approve or disapprove the proposed project. the hearing is on the environmental document only. the commission may at a future discretionary hearing weigh the staff recommendation on the merits of the project. the decision before the commission today is whether to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and to denial the appeal or to return the environmental review document to the department for preparation of an e.i.r. and al provided in the packets are the department's response of the concerns raised in the appeal letter, the appeal letter it and a draft motion to uphold the neg dec. it speaks to the project design,

code compliance concerns, and socioand economic concerns and do not relate to physical and environmental effects resulting in the project. they have been fully addressed by the department's responses, many of which have been evaluated in detail within the initial study. for the reasons outoutlined in the appeal response and in our presentation today, we believe that the neg dec complies with the requirement of ceqa and the ceqa guideline and provide adequate, accurate, and objective analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project. no substantial evidence supports a significant environmental effect may occur as a result of the project has been presented that would warrant preparation of an environmental impact report. in conclusion, the department believes that a mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate document for this project and we respectfully recommend that you adopt the motion to uphold the neg dec. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions as is the project architect.

thank you. president miguel: thank you. the appellant. >> the appellant. >> you can pull it down. >> we have a group of people here today who each have a specific reason to address the claimses that an environmental impact report need not be done. we do find that there is significant environmental impact and i wanted to just go and let

people speak each to their own special area if that's possible. president miguel: sure. i have card. i will call them. >> thank you. this is the order in which they came in. >> if it's possible that the people from the marsh can go first because they need to get back for their performance commitments and educational commitments. thank you. president miguel: i understand. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm stephanie wiseman, artistic director to have marsh. we are located at 1062 valencia street right next to the proposed new bidding. we purchased our building in 1996 and after looking at the plans, we are very concerned that we will have a negative

impact based on this new project. we are 21 years old, a vibrant community theater that develops new performance. we present over 400 performances each year, including hits such as brian copeland, and genuine black man and the longest running soul show in san francisco history and we are presenting the real american. these shows develop at the marsh, run at the marsh, and go across the country and around the world. in addition to our performances, the roster includes classes for youth and adults, rehearsals, and a cafe box office. and the building is in use ef day between 9:00 a.m. and late into the night. and when we move to the valencia corridor in 1990, the street was a very different from the now cultural gourmet hub it is now. it was a struggling neighborhood with boarded up buildings and businesses going under. we believe the marsh had and still has an enormous impact.

driving ticketholders into the neighborhood to see the hit shows who patronize local restaurants and businesses. we bring the neighborhood close to 600 visitors a week and 30,000 annually. the proposed construction and building could seriously har rm the marsh. what will it be like during construction? will we be able to maintain the daytime ongoing classes and reer is her sals and the nightly perform manss? we cannot tolerate sound bleed and disruption of the utilities. and if the building goes forward, how isolated from these issues and protected from them and compensated if there are problems? and if we can manage to last through the 18 months of construction, what will it be like once the building is up? it will tower over us. 55 feet to our 30 feet. we can only fear the impact of sound bleed and parking on our theater and no one has studied these issues.

as a nonprofit theater, our financial resources are limited. if customers say, wow, it is too much hassle to go down there, we can't park, public transportation is too difficult, to unsafe, or if the performances are disrupted by sound bleed from the building's elevator and rooftop parties, will the audience stay at the current levels? i don't think so. and if this is the case, our ticket sales will plummet and the marsh will be out of business. an is significant is the arts commission and mayor's office and the city has been a strong investor in the marsh as an art center and as a building. we are very grateful for this. [bell ringing] >> please protect this cultural jewel that san francisco has always strongry supported. please make sure this proposed building -- president miguel: thank you. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i have lived on liberty street a few blocks from the proposed new building for nearly 30 years. for the last seven of these i have volunteered and also worked for the marsh. i am currently their publicist and artist. and i would like to say i do everything that stephanie has mentioned. and i can stick with public transportation. it isn't easy to get around from 22nd and valencia. and it takes me nearly three times as long to get anywhere if i try to go by public transportation which i have over the years frequently and stopped riding my bike after i was knocked off by an absent minded car. i can't believe most of the

people living in the building will not take their car and that will have an impact on people coming to the theater and trying to find a spot. t already difficult. the oh thing is that i am astonished by this building in the first place. liberty hill is an historic neighborhood and we are very good at paying the extra planning department fees and not making alterations to the houses that we might have wanted to make because we support the concept. it seems that the city should be diligent in helping us preserve the beauty of the neighborhood. and a five-story monster does not seem to meet the bill particularly as most of it will be on hill street. and it may be legal, but i think we should be observing spirit as well as the letter of the law. otherwise, what is the point? finally, i have personal experience at buildings that don't fit into the neighborhood. on my street, which is liberty street t building was build in the 50 yes, sir and yuts right

around and 50 years later we are talking about it. people who move in and move like gotten used to it and it's nevada been part and texture of the neighborhood. this monstrous new building seems it can't help be exactly like that. the city has been wonderful over the year and we have provided top notch perform manses and gave the historic status. and whole group of people come on tours to see our building. this new building, to the contrary, is a greedy and agressive attempt to cash in on efg we have created on valencia street and it was boarded up and we are the only one left and the building has been completely --