this mission information crucial facts in issue such as the true stated transit areas in the area, classic of valencia street under the general plan, how it fits into the the city's transportation plan. it shows the fundamental miss judging of the promise and the area and the result is a fatal flaw in this environmental document. it must be corrected or amended. the department also feels to fully address the historic district and the visual impacts on the historic district from this proposed project. first of all as i talked about there is not a single conceptual rendering anywhere in the document which would show the impact and in fact the rooftop mechanicals and elevator e pent houses are not shown in any drawing or any

concept. with a project like this, a project that's being inserted in the historic district across the street on values gentleman and -- valencia and history k area, there is a sign in front of the subject property which announces the historic district and certain what is propose such a development is sensitivity, compatibility and color and materials might matter. the discussion in the environmental document is wrongful, there is no analysis of discussion. it says these buildings exist someplace and therefore the impacts will be the same as they are in any other urban area. with the right approach, this project could be completely contemporary design, could fit

in, but those issues are not discussed. they are not fully vetted in the environment. this is whether they have discussed the matter. they have admitted they got the discussion wrong and the none of the issues have been discussed. there seems to be such a confidence that this board will not grant a ceqa appeal given the statewide amendment. there is such a confidence that they don't bother to get it right, don't bother to get the neighborhood right, don't bother to discuss or analyze the issues in the environmental document. that's the goal of the department. is an is a full discussion of those issues and you do not

have that in front of you today. i would like to bring up to mic grassity that provides the forms in writing. thank the board for your attention and we hope to get the board's support today. >> thank you very much, mr. will -- williams. >> i have to remind members of the public that we prohibit applause or members of option so we can move further. i'm going acknowledge supervisor wiener. unfortunately your time is up. you do not have time unless there are questions asked of you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i have questions for mr. williams. i'm looking

at your october 14th submissions that your negative should beset aside and we should have an environmental report for this project? >> just an equally alternative would be a correction, an amendment of the existing negative declaration. 92 >> in terms of a high level of review because you have asserted some factual errors but there are other i think items that you state are significant with enough impacts that it would trigger any ir, in other words not a mistake in the declaration but what you claim to be a significant

impact. am i right? >> we have not gone that much in this direction that challenge this document. our challenge is that you can't know the impacts if you haven't done the analysis. you can't have done the analysis if you haven't gotten the facts straight. the facts aren't straight here. >> now, one thing that you indicated that you dispute this is a transit rich area. is that true? >> yes. in terms of transit area you pointed at 26 valencia love it or not it was not the most frequent line but that line was eliminated a while back. in terms of other transit access in the area i heard what some of the oh opponents of the project made that there is

little or remote transit area here. there are two bus lines that go down mission street with a fair amount of frequency. so putting even you have the church 3 blocks away, two bart station that are 4 blocks away, but then you have these mission puss lines -- bus lines that are 1 block away, how is that not accessible to transit. >> i'm not saying it's not accessible to transit. i'm saying this document fails to mention that the valencia line was canceled during the append sea of this action. that's a fatal flaw. >> you say there is no parking somehow there is inadequate transit. something you don't point out in your filings that there is mission lines 1 block

way. >> the department makes that point saying the mission street is 1 block away. >> that's correct, right? >> that is krek, -- correct. what does transit mean? it's an e amorphous vague term. >> you are not saying it's somehow unaccessible to transit a lot of appeal would -- people could consider it 1 block away. >> i don't think it's considered transit rich. >> if you are living in a triangle where you are 1 block way from the 24 line and 2 blocks from castro station you are not at the location. >> that's not point. i think you know that. the point is the

line on the street was canceled depending on the application and yet the environmental document makes no mention of that fact. >> right. and there is still a line that is 1 block away, right? >> that is true. >> you've also and you didn't touch on your presentation today but you discussed it in your filing about the parking issue. is it in terms of this project, it's 12 units. and a restaurant with no parking spaces. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> is it your view that a building with 12 units and no parking with the restaurant below it would that be tip the project into an environmental impact sflort -- report? >> not necessarily. >> in terms of restaurants that have gone in in the neighborhood i don't think any of them have parking. do you

think of any that have parking recent restaurants that have gone into the mission is this >> a number of them supply loading zones. >> but in terms of can you -- customer parking, it's not something you typically find. >> not typically. >> also you allow other neighbor areas for parking and the proposed mission parking for bartlett street. you recall referring to those? >> yes. >> do you think those are in you have to rise to the level of being a project into an environmental impact report? >> i don't know and neither does the board because those facts are not mentioned in this environmental document. >> all right. so you think adding a few park let's in the mission could have an environmental analysis in determining whether this project has an environmental

report. is there a relevance? >> there is relevance and a discussion of parking in the environmental document itself. it's glaring. >> i'm asking for your opinion in what the analysis should be. how many do you think that adding parkletts in various parts of the mission on valencia would be enough to tip this project into an ei r. >> it's not a fair question and narrowly focused. some spaces have been lost in the area and it's not brought up and even in the document, they do count spaces and how many will be used and that information should be there. >> do you think it's enough to tip it into a higher level of environmental review? >> i will have to wait to see

the analysis if it's done? >> you have analyzed that, haven't you? it's your job. >> i have analyzed the environmental review and they lacked those discussions that you are bringing up now. it's not in front of you. >> you don't have an opinion about losing some parking spots and could tip this into a higher level of environmental review? >> not in that singular context. >> mr. avalos. >> thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the comments from mr. wiener. i want to ask you a couple of follow up questions. this project is not in my district, but sort of like sarah palin can see russia from

her state, i can see this project from my district right across the street and unfortunately i don't know that there was a lot of outreach done on the district 9 side around this project. so what i'm trying to understand is i understand that one of the options that you are pointing to is the remedy of having the full environmental impact report which i think is a pretty high bar. but can you explain other alternatives in terms of modifying or clarifying the negative debt what exactly do you mean boo i that? what would that look like? >> that would inaccurate to the department so they can make it complete and inaccurate to include the discussions which of the important issues which we brought up. >> i have to say that that's

something that i certainly have a concern about. i certainly support a lot of changes that are happened on the parkletts on the valencia but i do think that it's important in terms of having a complete environmental analysis to make sure that those changes are taken into account. so i understand that point. one of the elements specifically that would be new to that negative declaration. what are specific things that you think are missing. i just want to understand the litany of things you are talking about. >> the entire environmental document relies almost

exclusively on conclusions that are not supported or substantiated by any evidence that includes parking traffic, circulation, loss of transit, the visual impact, noise, i know that's a very important issue. this site is also a former gas station. there are concerns of whether or not there is an underground storage tank on-site. there was a small snippet of removal of contaminated soil. in the summer signs went up and stickers went up that they were going to dig out an underground storage tank and it did not happen. so it maybe on site.

>> colleagues, any additional questions. let's hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of the appellants appeal. please lineup on the right hand side. each public member has 2 minutes. let's hear from the first speaker. >> sir, you are the first speaker unless you don't want to be. this gentleman can be the first speaker. >> good evening. i'm homeless. i am 82 years old, jew from russia. who survived holocaust and world war ii. now for 2

weeks i'm sleeping on the streets very nice in 82 years to sleep on the street. i'm sleeping on the street because our -- stop and our police, you don't know. i know german police. in san francisco police act like -- i saw how 5 police beat a patient in the general hospital. i believe they killed this man. i believe the san

francisco police. >> next speaker, please. >> richard grassity. just been use of my public time here to follow up on a few items that the supervisors asked questions about. rather than giving a presentation i planned i was going to respond to the questions of what additional studies might be included if the initial study were to be redone. i would say look at the physical aspects of parking and look at views from private property, nous not just public property. another one to look at shadows from private product and significance of temporary impact. if a shadow is temporary shall it doesn't mean it's not significant. another

one would be to look at the other neighbors. so you look at what does an 80-decibel noise and what are the affects. it's not there. as the materials were mentioned with regard to the tank and with the cumulative impacts. they do address that. if you look at the document it doesn't talk about. it identifies the cumulative projects. for example. the cumulative project, the reason is the cumulative impacts developed over time. what's the ceqa is about. instead of the document

saying it's a project, that's what cumulative project is for is to look at the scale project. >> thank you very much, members of the public you will hear a soft bell which indicates you have 30 seconds and then the latter bell. thank you, next speaker. >> these are the for the supervisors. >> the clerk will pick them up for you. >> hello, i'm stephanie wise man from the marsh. thank you for letting us speak today. everyone who is here from the marsh hills please stand up to let you know the public support for this. also that i know that i have sent out propose mitigation issues to everyone. i want that to be put on the record and we have 105 letters here in addition to whatever else you have in support of the

marsh. so, the marsh is one of the most fertile environments there is. it's up to its make the mosaic environmentally. it's the most theatrical vep u in the san francisco and bay area for the past 24 years and the solo performance venues in the world to develop it. you can check out the pink section, you will see in the 10 reviews, two of the reviews are for us if not 5. as a significant culture in san francisco, the marsh needs to be protect from the proposed development, noise and sound and vibration is in this concept. art #57d innovation is a huge part of

what makes this area that needs to be protected. we ask that you look at these things so we can be protected from any financial lose caused boo i this proposed development. and that we are designated as a sensitive receptor. thank you very much. please contact me if you have any questions. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisor. i'm charlie, i'm a resident at the marsh work are there for 22 years, play right, performer and director. the shows i have put on the marsh have attracted thousands of people to the valencia corridor. it an --

anchor in the mission district. it's a treasure in our city. we are talking about environmental quality. the marsh is the part of the san francisco cultural and now historic environment. we have a developer who has not respect that and who has not approached with respect to these hours. if i had confidence that this developer would look out for the interest of our theatre, i would not be here. but i do not have that confidence. so here we are late in the game at the ceqa phase trying to figure out a way forward. we do not wish to have nothing built at that corner. what we is something built that

will respect the neighborhood, will respect our theatre and will not come in with the goal of purely maximizing profit with the with respect to neighborhood and culture. thank you. >> my name is audrey. my relationship to marsh is my mom is stephanie wise man. she has brought me into the theatre life and the theatre has made me who i am today. on that note, when you are performing, you want the quietness and the help from those around you. you don't want construction sound. there are pesticides and chemicals. when you are in this show of performance you want to be heard and you want to be focused on. if you can yourself

deal with having someone hearing your stories. you don't want to hear jack hammers and you don't want to have the walls vibrating and you don't want the code violations of those places or for the san francisco being violated because if it happens you are going to have to do more construction and that will have more issues toward the performances as well. when you are moving in the theatre you want your body in the theatre motion. if you perform something a number of times, construction sound from the construction can throw you off and makes the audience extremely hard to hear you.

>> my name is sherriesteiner with the a little bit liberty. with 12 units and no garnls but in case we don't find enough people who want those kind of condos without cars, we are going the give them parking p because the neighborhood doesn't care. the neighborhood cares. it's a horrible impact on us and the whole idea that it not going to be a significant is by somebody who doesn't live there. i also feel as a historic district person that it's ridiculous to have this kind of a building come in with no historic attitude towards a design or the concept

that we are going to have 12 tiny units which means no families. the elderly or the disabled are not going to be able to drive to the hospital or whatever they need to do by car because no parking except that you can get your parking permit and park on the street. i live in a historic building that does not have a garage. i park on the street because i have to. that doesn't mean we continue this kind of development with a 12-unit building which has such an impact on the neighborhood. this is a neighborhood killer building. >> president chiu and supervisors, good afternoon. i have lived in san francisco

since 1983. i have been attended the marsh performances since 1989. it's my favorite destination for arts that are entertaining, prove -- provocative and powerful. on the other hand the marsh is ir replaceable. it's truly one of a kind throughout the united states. as such anything that impacts the marsh impacts the quality of life in san francisco. consider the marched as you would an endangered species. it coexist with the neighbors in a way thatten insures the contribution of the san francisco landmark are preserved forever. thank you. >> next speaker.

>> president chiu and supervisor. i'm a native of san francisco and work for the san francisco chronicle for 34 years. in that capacity i came to witness stephanie wise man and over the years she had become one of the premier solo entertainers of the world. my association with the theatre continued after i left the chronicle. over the last 5 yaers i found the marsh a valuable resource for learning and performance and access to a variety of different performing formats. i believe the marsh theatre is unique and valuable in san francisco cultural

entity that warrants full protection and care. to the extent that the city provides. >> it is an absolute historical treasure. it is so important to developing new solo artist. and the sound that will come from

this new building must be regulated and clearly defined so the marsh's performances are not interrupted, that no one is complaining about anything about the marsh because the marsh is a wonderful place. and i just can't they are not going to have a garage that boggles my mind. i must say. and as one who may not be driving too much longer i will know that it will make it impossible for all the traffic this last to be taken care