and we did extensive outreach to make certification this is something the community would enjoy -- to make sure this is something the community would enjoy it. next would be obviously seeking capital finance for implementation to be able to fully emblem and some of these ideas in the short-term future. we wanted to talk to you for a couple of minutes before closing about what it means to address the planning process. we had a very good experience with these two plans, and we think we did a lot of work with the community that are not advocating for change in their spaces may be good did not before have a voice to do that. we have a few things we would like you to think about.

we really tried to bring a strong identity for word for these corridors. it is a corridor that it looks like no one is really there. when we started the project, we thought no one was there, but we discovered there were a lot of people out there and living and working there. also for broadway, a stronger identity. we wanted to bring it forward and strengthen its identity. they were both very complex projects because we had very strong constraints -- a lot of constraints, physical constraints because of the roles were really fixed and we could not change much and also because there were a lot of needs. i think our way of dealing with

the community and having a dialogue was very helpful to make everyone understand the trade-offs and find a solution. chinatown has a strong identity, as i said, but very high pedestrian volumes. in both cases, we wanted to save a space for people to use the streets in their everyday lives. i think in both cases, we tried to do that in our designs. lastly, the importance of the implementation. practical, some what pragmatic goal that was the way to make things easier if the ideas were to be implemented, how we go about it, and we found the community partnership, really finding a dialogue in the

community was key, and also, the idea of having interagency collaboration with the transportation authority and also puc. with that, i think i covered everything. if you want more information, we have two websites that have a lot of information with maps and documents. you can also look at my report, and the runway report is forthcoming. thank you. commissioner fong: ok. wheat -- >> ok, we have one speaker card. maybe there is more. fran taylor. and then we'll open it up to public comment on this report. are you here?

is there any other public comment on this but did? ok, we will go straight to commissioner comments. commissioner wu: by way of disclosure, i did work on the chinatown broadway project before joining the commission, but i do not want to do it my own horn, but i think this model -- i would really in courage department to look at this kind of partnering comedy the engagement to the community, focus on education in all of the outrage that we do. i see the need for it in legislation. i see the need for it in big projects. like i said, i know that there are staffing constraints, but there is a model and principle that i think is important. the one note i made to myself is

the other thing i really learned through the project was about peak times and how rigid i think the standard is. the morning commute hours and afternoon commute hours, but i think for different communities, it is different. for some communities, it may be a lunch or shopping or school hour or something like that. just wanted to note that i know it is beyond this planning department, but that is a place i would really love to see some change or flexibility. commissioner antonini: a few suggestions on these plans. i think ball bounce due for the pedestrian closer to the crosswalk, but they make anyone -- make it difficult for anyone trying to make a right turn -- i think bulbouts do put the pedestrian close in the crosswalk. it is kind of trade-off. another thing i think you have

to implement, but below it on broadway -- broadway in stockton in particular, but almost all the streets -- is a signal system when there is a walk signal where everybody walks in as many directions as possible like we do on california, montgomery, in the financial district, and when it is not well, it is all traffic in various ways, so you are not holding up a whole lane of traffic while people are trying to make a right turn onto stockton for two signals before you can make the turn onto stockton. it just makes sense that you restrict the walkers to certain times and the rest of the time, it is traffic time in the various directions. then, in regards to cesar chavez, i think the interchanges really need to be improved with particular reference to coming off of 280 or 101 in particular.

it is very easy to get completely lost. and if we are having a development in hunters point where there will be thousands of people living and working, and for them to get off of those freeways and access hunters point by evans and eventually and is on that route or cargo, again, it is real tricky, and it is going to be a big bottle that if you do not address that. even now, it is difficult. if you come from the clam house and make the wrong turn, you get in a lot of trouble. but if you are going to do biplanes, make sure they are separate from the streets. if they start getting on to cesar chavez, it is going to be a real problem. the sale will be true of any buses that will be implemented. i read somewhere where there were not any buses, and probably that is a good thing if we could put them somewhere else, if --

unless we could create a separate bus-only or light rail- only lane because it will slow down things even more. those are some of the things i have noticed around the area. i know it is a big problem. i remember in 1969 when they were working on that interchange. it took, like, a year-and-a- half. commissioner miguel: i think the work in chinatown looks good. i have not been called in it. but i did attend at least one of the meetings. i cannot remember if it was two regarding cesar chavez because it is potrero hill, and i use it

all the time. it is just interesting to me that these are caltrans grants when these are probably some of the worst injuries and exits from freeways into san francisco that they ever designed. even when you know the area well, for years and years and years, you have to stop and think again -- which elaine am i supposed to be in? because that is where you are going to end up. they are very unforgiving. cesar chavez in itself is the absolute opposite of broadway. broadway is a place. cesar chavez is not a place in effect when you are talking about place making. it has virtually no pedestrians because there is nothing to go

to. there is no transit to wait for to go to a bus stop. there is no retail whatsoever. you go from mission street and you keep going to third, and there is nothing. so you have very different street situations there. basically, the sections you are talking about our transit streets. they are major transit streets. without public transit on it. it is all private transit. very heavy commercial transit use. because of the industrial nature of that whole area, which is not going to change that much. but if anything can be done to facilitate the freeway access,

and i notice you have the sidewalks even are only feet wide, where as if you noticed i vigo mystery to the residential districts, they go at least 10, but you will not have enough pedestrians there to bother with in my estimation. i am really pleased with the out reach you did. outreach in that area is very, very difficult to get people out. when other projects or other organizations have tried to get out reach, it has been very minimal, and i think you did an excellent job. commissioner moore: i applaud you for having gotten the grant, and i applaud what you did with it. i think it is great to see the

two quarters inject supervision because they speak to the type of tools but also the innovativeness by which you approach these very different environments. i am more confident -- commenting on the broadway study because i avoid the other one because i mostly get lost. admitting that, i want to comment on the broadway study. fearing that the capacity of broadway might be slightly overstated. what i also see as a major hindrance on using the st. effectively is also double parking for truck loading and unloading on the north side. double parking for passenger unloading and loading on the south side because we are pressed on one side with large restaurants and we have larger retail facilities on the north side. the thing i'm very concerned about is the impact of the van ness brt and add to becoming an

extension of fiber one instead of the way it is currently where we have multiple intersections taking the in-bound movement to downtown along venice's. i think that needs to be looked at. this is a project in motion. this is a good spot analysis, but there are many other changes, which i think you need to continuously monitor before you settle on what the solutions are. you addressed the issue of broadway on the tunnel. there is also a strong movement of using the street that strip lands, going up to nob hill, going up to taylor and distributing from there. there is a subset of movement which does need to be taken into consideration. hopefully, the more funds you

have to keep the current project and other things coming on line, and you need to reconsider those moves. >> i wanted to thank staff because these products do exemplify more progressive thinking in terms of outreach and how we think about these streets. both streets are a serious challenge in the sense that we all kind of had to agree that the amount of traffic volume of these streets maintain today probably is not going to be lessened by much, and we had to maintain those traffic volumes while at the same time make it much safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. unlike other streets, that is where we are able to reduce traffic capacity. these are two streets where we were not able to. it was an interesting challenge for us. but i also think that this is an interesting model for us in terms of public outrage.

commissioner sugaya: i assume because of the nature of the grant, your scope in a sense was limited? because, for example, you have under community priorities in the chinatown/broadway area, the community priority of support institutions and local businesses apparently was voiced by the local community, but i assume, given the restrictions on the grant, you could not really been grabbed a hold of that and move forward with it as much as some of us maybe what have liked to have seen. is that right? >> that is correct. the scope of the work was looking at the streetscape design. i think we wanted to acknowledge that.

by now, we're looking at the east/west bank and looking at ways that we can use sine age or other ways to advertise or brand the corridor. the economic development perhaps comes later. commissioner sugaya: as long as we do not forget that was raised by the community itself. i am not one for a lot of sign controls and storefront controls, but i happened to be in the area of the other day, and i thought -- this is really a mess. but this did not seem to hang together right. commissioner moore: driving in that area as well as walking, i am concerned that the not just aging, but the old population who is operating in that corridor requires special

attention. these people are not just walking slowly, but they are also on walkers or in wheelchairs for all being assisted by another person getting across. it requires a timing of signalization on this intersections, which really need to be looked at very carefully, including the type of services you would put people on. it requires some re-education about when to go or not to go, but the sheer time it takes to get across requires a larger increase -- a longer increment than what is currently allowed. commissioner fong: thank you. great work. >> commissioners, this will place you on your 5:00 p.m. calendar. g, public comment on agenda items where the public hearing has been close. members of the public who wish to address the commission on

agenda items that have already been reviewed at a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed must do so at this time. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have several speaker cards. commissioner fong: i think we are going to take a two-minute break while staff it's prepared for this item. >> to welcome everyone back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, june 20, june, 2012. a lot of people in the audience. i would like to remind everyone to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the hearing or at least silence them. please speaking -- please speak directly into the microphone and state your name for the record. we left off on public, on the agenda items were public hearing

has been closed. there is only one item to which this pertains, which is case 17, the 1601 like in st. certification of the final environmental about report. i would like to request an remind everyone who has decided to speak on this item to speak only to the certification of the final environmental impact report and not the project itself. your opportunity to speak to the project will come up later in the hearing. i have also been advised by the commission president that each speaker will be limited to two minutes. again, public comment on agenda items were the public hearing has been closed. commissioner fong: i will call a bunch of names in order, and if you want to line up on this side of the room, we will get through.

[reading names] >> good evening, commissioners. i am each share of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods land use and housing committee. i would like to read part of a newsletter. this was the june newsletter. i will read portions of it. "ceqa mandates are considering alternatives concerning adaptive reuse, partial preservation before the elimination of a significant historic resourced. ceqa also for have it's altering significant buildings before approval. it is unfortunate it has not been done. going on, 2010, planning

commission, commissioners agreed that the eir was not certified any plan for an outside condo building was rejected when the developer failed to consider alternatives to preserve a historic resource. removing a significant resource is prohibited without some effort to identify the options for adaptive reuse or partial preservation. csfm strongly from its efforts to preserve historic buildings and opposes progress of demolition tactics to win project approval. we believe san francisco will greatly benefit only if the store preservation laws and ceqa laws are strictly enforced. thank you. >> good evening.

i am representing the middle polk neighborhood association. two years ago, we came before you about this same project and the problems with the eir we discussed over a long hearing, mainly revolving around the failure to consider alternatives. the problem with that was based on a too narrow project description -- excuse me, project objectives, which was actually a project description. the request to have the maximum number of development unit's allowed under the planning code is not inappropriate project objective. it should be a viable multi-year project on the site. in light of the problems with the eir and also because it was obvious that this project which would cause significant environmental impact could not

be approved unless there was an overriding public benefit, which could not be found, the commission denied the project and exempted it from ceqa for purposes of the nile. that was challenged in court and vigorously defended by your counsel, successfully. it has been going just fine, and we ask that you do the same thing tonight. the eir has not been -- the problems are still there. things had just gotten worse. while everyone would like to see something happen, it needs to be done properly. we ask that the commission give direction but exempt the project from ceqa and deny it. thank you. >> commissioners, i live at clay street within 300 feet of the project site. i want to show you a time line.

the top line basically showed you two years beginning june 24, 2010 when the project was not approved. on june 7, 2010, a number of us were served with third-party witness subpoenas by the project sponsor, and a little while after that, the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation was also serve with a subpoena. there has been kind of radio silence from the project sponsor for two years while this has been in litigation, up until may 23, 2012, when i received a call from dennis ferreira instructing me that i should meet with the architect. -- from dennis herrerra. if the project sponsor concerts me with a subpoena, they could find me. the other thing -- a comparison of two years to one month. look at all this activity.

on may 30, we had a presentation from the architect. on june 7, there was a presentation here. on the 12th, members of middle polk net and delivered what we are looking for with the product. on june 17, while the project sponsor was playing golf, we were told we would be given a concession of 24 inches for this project. i feel that we are running out of time here. we request that weeir needs to be -- we request that the eir be recirculated. there has not been enough time for anyone to present this to the hpc. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. member of the american institute of architects, and an architect here in san francisco. with regard to the eir, i want

to address the issue of the blight. the blight that the proposed project would remove is a function in part of the treatment of the building for the past five years. the owner of the building and sponsor have provided no exterior lighting, even though the fixtures exist. there is no power to the building. it is a registered vacant building. there is no fence on the vacant lot for a number of years. it would come and go again. it made this site a magnet for homeless and all sorts of other illicit behavior is. the church has been piecemeal picked apart, not by the owner of the church, not by the methodist council, but by the sponsor and his workmen. they do not own the building, but they have been looting the church. they took the wood flooring out of the sunday school. the dbi director caught them in

the act when neighbors reported work being done without a permit. it was later relate to the neighbors that the wood flooring was sold for use in a restaurant. the door hardware disappeared from the front doors the week after the designation report mentioned the door hardware was still there. the floor of the tower was left open to the elements, and we could see water stains from the holes in the floor of the tower and pigeon droppings from the fact that birds were allowed into the building. the dry rot investigations the sponsor made from the outside left the building open to the weather for more than a year. no repairs were made to the peace that fell off, and the sponsor removed other portions of it on the larkin street side. thank you very much.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is robyn tucker. i am the co-share of the pacific avenue neighborhood association. our association generally defers to the neighbors and the neighborhoods where a particular project is proposed, especially where they are directly impacted. however, with this budget the project has the potential to impact not only the neighborhood where it is proposed but other neighborhoods throughout the city, we felt it important to appear today. i would like to make just two statements related to the eir. it is - standing that the latest development plans proposed are essentially the same as the plans that were deferred or denied for further development

by the planning commission two years ago, and despite the appearance of modest setbacks in the new plan, the structure will overwhelm the surrounding buildings and greatly compromised the community's access to light, air, and open space. you only need to visit the sick and polk streets to see a similar book-sized building beginning to rise. it is only two stories high, and already, neighbors are saying to meet -- what happened? we are already seeing the sky blighted and air and light be affected. thank you very much. commissioner fong: let me call a couple more names. [reading names]