programmatic,e. ir. this is a small project. and then we consider when this project can be considered as a significant cumulative impact with regard to points we are discussing and even if there were, there is no evidence that the project's contribution to a potential cumulative impact can be xhultively considerable. >> i know a lot of people who have been involved in eastern neighborhoods in that whole plus 7-year process and i have yet to have someone say that exactly. i think there is a number of folks that have been

surprised. i haven't heard anyone claim that the level of development was expected so that's a first one in terms of what i hear. i'm also really worried about the analysis around noise with respect to the marsh. can you talk a little bit more about that because you are talking about a very cultural institution that is central to the identity of this neighborhood and not just valencia corridor but the entire mission neighborhood. i'm really worried about the, i don't know that enough attention has been given or certainly not articulated to the very legitimate concerns

that were raised by the various testimony around that. >> for this, i would like to thank urn thinks over to tonya singer from the planning department. >> the m and d analyze different noise and impact wrap to the marsh. we looked at how construction noise would affect the marsh theatre. it's regulated by the noise ordinance with very specific terms regarding when construction is permitted. as part of to discretionary review. the construction would be allows from 7 to 6 and 7 to

one on saturday. the mr. -- m and d doesn't analyze -- but does in the impact. in this case cop -- construction is to last about 18 months and it's only when construction is really noisy. so the rest of the time construction noise is limited to interior project modifications. >> i know there are a number of mitigations that have been proposed by the marsh and i'm wondering whether planning has looked at those and considered those whether you are incorporating many of those into mitigations that you are

recommending. >> good afternoon, sarah jones. environmental review. the noise issues and analyzed under ceqa are mitigated. they were raised in the context of the discretionary review hearing but there were further conditions applied through that process and rich dra can address that. >> yes. as part of the discretionary review of the planning commission. planning

commission ultimatelly struck a balance between limiting the hours from 7:00 a.m.-6 :00 p.m. it would allow construction. they did strike a balance in terms of looking at limiting it from 5:00 or preventing activity on the weekends and ultimately decided to strike a compromise and recognizing that limiting the hours further might extend the construction timeframe. >> okay. thank you. colleagues any further questions to the planning department. seeing none, let's hear from the

presentation by the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, evening, supervisors, ruben and rose, attorneys for the project response ofrment i would like to make a brief comment on the ceqa document which would any significant effects on the environment. i would like to reiterate for a standard of review for an appeal. to be successful an appellant must state there is a substantial evidence the project could have a serious environmental effect. substantial means facts looking for reasonable assumption predicated on facts and expert opinions supported by facts.

other things like general arguments ub supported speculation of potential harm aren't enough to meet this standard. here no substantial evidence has been provided that the negative declaration is inadequate. so this st has not been met. second, the nag dak was the project of a thorough review of staff. in fact it was upheld by the planning commission following by the previous appeal following in 2010, in which many of the issues were raised and on the basis of substantial evidence property concluts -- concludes that it could not affect the faevenlth -- affect. it's

scale and design and the public views of the vista and area. historic resources and parking and loading and many items. it specifically impact to noise in the community which we have heard about this evening. both during construction and after completion would be less than significant for purposes of ceqa. this analysis applies to the entire neighborhood including the adjacent marsh theatre. this is a document analyzed that raises the concerns of the appellant. for these reasons request ask this be denied. thank you. i'm available for any questions. >> any questions for the

colleagues? >> thank you. can you talk about the a little bit of the process that you reached out to the community and addressed some of the environmental issues that have been raised whether it's issues around traffic, transportation, noise? >> supervisor campos, for the project sponsor as well. this project has been going on for 7 years. there certainly has been an enormous amount of outreach and dialogue that is continuing on. there is a hearing at the board of appeals. the project has shrunk, it has modified in response to concerns by the neighbors and we believe this project is fully ready to be finalized and built. >> i understand that and i appreciate that but i'm wondering if you can walk me through for issues of mitigating some of the noise

issues that have been raised. can you walk me through that process. what did you do? >> yes, there have been a number of meetings with the liberty hill neighbors throughout the process of design as part of the discretionary review process, the project sponsor agreed to limit construction hours and to ensure proper sound proofing would be done to the building to mitigate any noise impacts. in addition, there are a number of construction efforts taken on this project that will limit the sound on the marsh reaching the building and things like following a sound consultant and will be implementing a 6-inch separation. current

plywood and wall will be replaced with an eight inch 8-inch wall and current commercial space in the restaurant is going to be replaced with hallways and dead space that is going to insulate the marsh from further annoys impact. following in the dr there will be noise that will affect the project. that will be removed. that will eliminate concerns as well. effort have been under taken to respond to noise concerns. >> a couple questions, what do you response to the proposed mitigation measures that the marsh has presented? do you agree with them? >> we have not received a copy of those measures. >> okay. when was the last time you had a meeting with the

folks in the marsh community? >> good evening, project sponsor. we met with the marsh directly after the dr meeting. we proceed actively went over and investigated some issues that they had on the property, some roof drainage issues and we also retained their sound consultant to come up with a report that should be floating around here with the planning department somewhere. we didn't find any issues with the sound. the building formally was a nightclub. back in 86 and 87 he received some complaints and on two occasions he pulled permits to do the soundproofing. all the complaints we heard tonight

about the fees ability of the marsh is groundless because there is no reason they can do that now. there is open space in the back. there is large service area for the restaurant where the recycling goes on at night. that does not interfere with the performance now. the conditions are going to be even better as my counsel mentioned we are replaced the 2 x 4 wall in the former kfc building with an 8-inch thick concrete with a wall. it's like a bun ker. in. the feeling that there is going to be noise is completely unfounded. the noise that is going to happen, their schedule does not show any daytime performances at all except on

the weekends. we agreed to these limited hours because we were under the impression that they were happy with that. it's come back to bite us now. >> when was the dr. hearing? >> september of 2012. >> have you m it with them since then? >> we've been in phone conversations over some roof issues, but we haven't met with them since. it's not for lack of trying. >> it's been a year and 3 months. thank you. >> any other questions, colleagues to the project sponsor. okay, why don't we hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of the project sponsor. first speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, tim on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. i would like to express my

intense frustration to having to speak at a hearing for this. years after the project has come to us and here we are again both sides lawyered up and to why ceqa is such a broken process and two why san francisco has such a difficult time in addressing the housing challenges it so plainly faces. this took ten years to adopt. we were involved in many of those. the eastern set out the rules to what the city would say how we would address the future. what rules the developer had to play by. the project we saw has 15 units. it has no parking. 1-1 bike parking and they do their

on-site inclusionary there. apparently no good deed goes unpunished in this town. there is going to be a lot more zoning tool which is for dense cities. the traffic is bad and we know mament mta has trouble and we have to get in particular more projects like this. the message i would like to leave is lending institutions has projects? san francisco. we have many examples of successful car free projects to give institutions the confidence to lend to these projects. this is a great example of what we've told the developed we say you should do this type of project. they are doing it in years later here we are. i would ask to you turn down appeal. thank you. >> thank you, neck speaker?

good evening, board. thank you for having us and for staying so late with us. my name is nicole shrader and i'm here on behalf of walk san francisco to support zero parking project, zero parking projects directly support live ability, health and environmental and economic goals of our city. pointing to a fact sheet by mtc regarding senate bill 743 analysis under ceqa new changes to ceqa allow changes to parking in aesthetics to parking areas that are transit rich high quality transit which is.4 miles from bart. it explicitly

eliminates a residential missed use redental or employment center project. so this qualifies under that new ceqa threshold. 0 parking projects makes sense for san francisco. about half of the households in the mission are non-car owners lrs lr. there are only 12 units. we are talking about only 12 people, 12 households. if i lived here i would go in there knowing that people are going to self select. there are plenty of options for walking and cycling and transit in this area. it's a wonderful place for this sort of promise. zero

parking is a way of the future and necessary steps if we want to achieve our city's shared climate action goals. >> good evening, supervisors, my name is carlos schwartz on behalf of the bicycle coalition. valencia is the most used bicycle routes in the city, a 95 percent increase in the number of bikers in the last 5 years and we know this number is growing. these are people who live and work in the neighborhood and visit and support it and this is one of the best areas for biking and walking in the city. the corridor is diverse in dynamic residential and commercial uses that is well served by transit and bike lanes and flat lanes. this is an important precedent for the city for car free development and city. we mod

that it provides ample secure bike parking for the growing demand in the neighborhood. so my question to you all at the board is if we can't build 12 units of car free living development in this walkable transit rich bicycle community. >> thank you, any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor, seeing none, at this time let's hear back from the pell apts -- appellants who have up to three minutes to respond. >> steve williams again, thank you so much for your petition. this -- patience. with ceqa you have been giving so much

misinformation. let's start with the height. the height of the building is 70 feet. it's 55 feet to the roof. right on the architect drawings, there is another top 5 feet to the top and 10 feet on mechanicals on top of that. how can you analyze under ceqa if you don't measure that. ceqa relies on analysis. this the building is 70 feet tall. the nmd analyze notice with respect to the marsh. as a result not. the nmd

does not recommended the marsh it's not mentioned in there and it's not noted as the neighbor. there is zero mention, completely and totally emitted from consideration. the people that have lined up here today have given you substantial evidence that are not mentioned in anyway shape or form in the environmental document. the planning told you they did the analysis. that's completely incorrect. i don't know where that comes from. it's not up to the public to provide impact when the analysis has not been completed. we have provided expert testimony that this document is incomplete. we

provided common sense. it's not mentioned. how can it be analyzed if it's mentioned. you can't analyze a situation if you never looked at it. that's all we are getting if this environmental document. so you are being provided completely untrue and misinformation. we urge you, use your common sense. if it's not in there it can't be analyze. they can't just wave a magic wand. that is not an equivalent . we urge you to look the at the -- entire

document. >> colleagues, anymore questions. supervisor wiener? >> i have a point of clarification because mr. williams made reference to 26 valencia. i went online to remind myself when the 26 was eliminated, i think it was in late 2009, i wanted to get confirmation to that. i believe the negative declaration was issued in 2010. since there was discussion about that earlier i wanted to get clarification. >> liz, thanks for pointing that out and giving us an opportunity for something that we discovered the line was eliminated prior to issuing the pmd and that is why we do not identify one of the lines

present in the vicinity. >> colleagues, any final comments or questions. or should i close the hearing. >> one question around the noise in the marsh and the contention that this wasn't a mention of the marsh of the analysis and i wonder what your response is? >> i believe the correct statement what was part of the response which is that md does not specifically analyze the marsh theatre but the characterization. we do regret if there was a misstatement that suggested that the analysis is specifically done perhaps due to the nervousness. we did do the noise analysis and it does apply to the marsh

theatre. >> i upside, does m & d mention the marsh. >> perhaps, what my colleague said she was mischaracterized. we did conduct a noise analysis and identified what the construction phase impacts of the project would be and would be applicable to the marsh theatre as well. >> does document mention the marsh theatre? >> we are flipping now the. but in the noise analysis we did not do so. it identifies

sensitive receptors residential uses. we did not identify a theatre as a sensitive receptor and therefore we didn't focus our analysis on that. >> from a common sense approach, i'm just wondering if the documents doesn't mention the theatre, how can it consider the noise impact on the theatre if it's not even mentioned in it. >> the analysis that we conducted pursuant to ceqa is to evaluate the project and we look at the noise standards to when the project was complied, st san francisco noise identifies the receptors. the theatre is not identified as a receptor for noise ordinance.

the impact is characterized how to types of impact that would occur during construction with regard to during construction impact equipment whether it's the marsh theatre or another use, it's the same physical transmission of noise that would occur. i'm hearing today that the suggestion that the mash theatre is worthy of more detailed analysis in the m and d that it received. we believe that we've conducted the ceqa review that was required of noise impact and was not required that there be the level of noise analysis specifically of impact of construction on the march theatre that is clearly being asked for it today and we think that renders m and d inadequate and certainly renders

information that others would have liked to have seen. i understand the point but saying you measured it when you didn't mention it, it doesn't sit well with me. >> if i can clarify with, this identifies entertainment uses in the area. as indicate they are not noise sensitive under our noise ordinance. >> colleagues, any final questions. okay. at this time unless there are any final questions. this hearing is held and closed. these matters are in the hand of the board. supervisor wiener? >> thank you. mr. president.

>> i would like to thank all the members of the community who came here today. i think we have an agreement and the marsh is a unique treasure for our city and that we have to be very serious when it comes to preserving all sorts of arts and nightlife and theatre uses in the city. i know that i and others