copp, and it does not improve the situation in any noticeable way for the adjacent property owner. this is ms. todd's home. this is the deck that must be cut back to meet this extension right here. so we're cutting back about this far into this existing balcony. the area below it, as you see, that we'd be eliminating our infill from is fully solid. so if we were to cut this back any further than this, we're not giving any substantial benefit in any sort of way that's going to mean something to the adjacent property owner. when you make a d.r. decision that find a way to form a compromise and to re-design a building that gives both neighbors a way to move forward, it improves the situation for both parties. that makes a lot of sense to everybody. but in a situation like this, where we're cutting into a balcony that he already has. and in going all the way back to the house, eliminate ago french door that he has accessing a deck, eliminating the possibility of a table being anywhere on this deck, it becomes just a walkway. so i would ask that you uphold the decision as it was previou

this is on 50 beale street, adjacent to the 350 mission street project. i appreciate the time. i will try to be brief and clear as possible. if you have seen the submissions and the attorney and developer, you have had a lot thrown at you with almost 20 court cases that were cited, the statutes from the public resources code, and the guidelines. this gets complex very quickly. but really, there are only a couple of issues in place here, and only a few reasons we think that was certified by the planning commission is not sufficient. i wanted to talk about a couple of general issues, first. if you read the submissions for the project developer, they seem to be suggesting that this is improper, and these issues have the planning code exceptions, that were granted by the planning commission before the board of appeals and we should not even be here. this is true, we have the appeal pending on the planning code issues. we're here to talk about these extensive issues. i do not think the council should suggest that we have to pick and choose and can only appeal -- we have to somehow f

rooms and adjacent units. i would like to say we have done all lot of work as part of this working group -- [tone] we have been thoughtful about their responses and looked at them from several different perspectives, not just that tenant perspective. i know my time is up, but i have some testimonials from people who were not able to come today and i have copies for the clerk. supervisor kim: thank you. i'm going to call up a few more names. [reading the names] >> the good morning. my name is victor nelson. i'm just a concerned citizen for this hearing, but over the past year, i've had an opportunity to work with hundreds of sro tenants in the mission and the number one, issue were drug dealing and outside of their hotels and the reason we're here today, which is bedbugs. i listened while these tennant told me horror stories of being eaten up at night, kept up night after night, and the subsequent deprivation of sleep and the rigors of committing to the bedbug treatment process. many tenants spoke of

rooms and adjacent units. i would like to say we have done all lot of work as part of this working group -- [tone] we have been thoughtful about their responses and looked at them from several different their responses and looked at them from several different

granted, there will be adjacent to maybe some slightly larger buildings. predominantly, there will be landscapes semi-private semi- public courtyards of a similar nature, particularly on the west half of the site, where the building scale is lower, and residents will slab -- will have the same opportunities outside their backyards if they choose to live on the ground floor. those on upper stories can come down to the courtyards to let their children play and do all the things people normally do. chairperson mar: so for the garden view unit folks that have the shared backyard areas -- you're saying there is going to be a number of courtyards connected to each of the different buildings, and also the six hubs of common areas that are within minutes' walk of each site? >> that is correct. these courts are more private. the neighborhood comments are meant to be -- neighborhood commons are meant to be very public parks. these would be semi-private, more oriented toward the adjacent residents taking ownership of them and improving them if they desire, and manage

it also required to non- residents with hotel marking in the south of market, adjacent to downtown, to have a structure to discourage long-term commuter parking. we have met with key stakeholders in mission bay, and has been brought to our attention, that this is undergoing a planning process. this includes blog 800701, and now we're asking to remove these numbers from this legislation. it is described in the planning staff report. another issue that has come to our attention, is the issue of participation in the transportation management program. there is a concern that for some business in the market -- this may unintentionally burden small business. we will work with small business to address this, as we move forward with some of the suggested changes. we will go to larger venues, the move in the neighborhood serving retail. i wanted to bring this to your attention. i want to thank the city attorney who has the working on this, and the planning staff who have been working on this as well. we wanted to give you our thanks. >> rogers, planning department's staff. i want to go to the b

provided at this institution as it relates to the health needs of the residents who live in the adjacent neighborhood to have tenderloin and that's just a very simple question. i don't think it is that complicated. i'm glad to hear that there have been, you know, some support of clinics and the bayview and other neighborhoods but i think as it itself relates to land use and adjacent si and health care needs being addressed by an institution that will be requesting of this commission several acts above and beyond what is allowed as of right in the planning code, i think then we need to look at, you know, some of the mitigations and really balance out all of these issues and as we have with other projects, even though the development agreement is something that is drafted between the project sponsor and the mayor's office and in other words the city of san francisco, it is not really the planning commission, i acknowledge that, we do want to be able to have some guarantees that the institutions that we're going to be engaging with and looking at, you know, agree to certain exceptions and v

want to move forward with this amendment or for us to draft language and come back with what is adjacent. president o'brien: commissioner dooley? the commissioner dooley: i think we should go ahead and do this first. present o'brien: ok, with no further comments from the commissioners, we will open it up for public comment. clerk: public comment will be for three minutes. please state your name clearly. >> i want to congratulate you. this is one of the most are thinking things i have seen you do. the french businesses are businesses that are going to be impacted, i think they might be a lot further than you would think. if you go by polk and lombard, the cars are lined up, trying to go past the crooked streets, and that is four blocks away on a normal day. when they have big events, like fireworks, the impact of cars backing up, the buses cannot move. the cable car. it starts impacting things much further away, so as to have your discussions with whomever, the impact will be more far reaching than you think. again, congratulations for your forward thinking. another thought to go forward

the area as opposed to situations where moneys are taken out and used in other areas that might be adjacent to somewhere else in the city. >> this can only be spent on the projects that are outlined in the infrastructure financing plan which it serves as the constitution for this and that list that i showed you, those are the only projects that can get funded. those are the projects that this commission approved as part of the plan. >> we know from our discussion last week that these cannot be part of a redevelopment agency. at least they cannot become ifd's right now. >> if you are in redevelopment area, either currently where in the past, you cannot form an ifd. >> can you clarify the bonding limit. is that specific to this? >> that is specific to the rincon hill ifd. there are estimates for our portion. we wanted to have a contingency. if the construction costs or more expensive, we would like to bond a bit more. >> the 3.9 million associated, that would come out of the -- >> yes, that would count against that cap. >> the 3.5 million would go to the other improvements that are part of th

where it makes sense to build a plaza, we look for adjacencies. the way that people are adjacent to the space and can help us maintain it. it all came with agreements on how to maintain them. that dialogue is always there. if the project moves forward, it has been very clear with the dialogue that we also have to talk about maintenance and how we can get them to be cared for. the question about the streets. we have done as much as we can to try to keep people out of the streets. i was going to joked earlier that he last bench was taken up on market street a year ago. it is not working. we still have all of these social issues that we had. we have to be strategic about it. and even then, the folks that you might not want to be there are sort of ingratiating the street and making it better. that is kind of the dance we are trying to do. it is a very careful dialogue about how we do that and whether it is successful. the prevailing thought about how to make our streets more comforting. supervisor cohen: i think you guys have built a wonderful plan ba

noise and vibrations associated with the building's mechanical element not being -- or any other adjacent building. this would be required to meet all codes which control noise levels. the department of public health investigated complaints regarding fix mechanical source noises such as a ventilation systems, air-conditioning, motors and compressors. the district inspectors will take measurements to see if they stand to allowable levels. they will require the property owners to make sure that they are compliant. this might include times when the machinery is allowed to be turned on, relocating equipment, nor is compression measures, or other measures. the project is subject to the noise ordinance which regulates operational noise for all buildings in the city. the fourth point is air quality. this -- the operational air quality was considered less than significant. the proposed project would pose potential health risk, particulate diesel matter that is emitted during construction. the mission would not exceed the air quality management district significant threshold. the operation air qua

they are actually providing greater relief to the adjacent building at the lower levels. with that, i am available to answer any questions. if you have any questions for mr. guy, i would love to have him speak. i think you will be as impressed with him as i am. president goh: the 103 foot setback requirement -- what mr. sanchez was saying was that they could not decide this -- they could design this building so it came all the way out for the first 103 feet. is that right? >> yes. that is correct. the lower power requirement -- tower requirement begins at a high of 103 feet. on the site adjacent, they are providing a more significant setback in what is required. president goh: why did they do that? >> i suppose it would have to ask the project sponsor. one of the things we look at in terms of criteria and what the commission considers in exceptions is whether or not you have done a compensatory reductions in other areas of the building to make up for where you might be seeing a book standard or a separation standard elsewhere. in this particular case, they did provide a m

with the adjacent surrounding buildings and adopted that motion. and finally, i'm extremely happy to inform you that we have the support of the adjacent property owner, mr. sam haskins, who owned the building with the mural artwork. after several meetings with mr. haskins, his wife mary lou and the mural artist, we were able to reach a positive agreement with her neighbors. on behalf of my client and the project sponsor, i respectfully request that you approve the project as proposed and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you for your attention. president olague: thank you. public comment? i have one speaker card, judy west. >> afternoon, commissioners. i live in the immediate neighborhood. i'm really glad to see a presidential project finally making its way through the is. i think that it's a real disservice to the city that industrial protection zone that we've installed upon our neighborhood. i think that you all should take some responsibility for the lack of middle income housing in this town. we funded a lot of afforda

but in terms of -- there is something under ceqa called and adjacency will, and for that reason, it is being studied together. -- adjacency rule. >> i do not know how easily you can get back to your slide on the funding sources, but it did not quite match up with what we have in our report, and you went through it fast enough that i could not tell if it was just that it was based or we have a table 3 on page 9 of the report, and a quick passage through could not match. >> i thought that a stable four. >> it was tabled two. >> no, it was not. it was tabled four, i think, that he showed. >> i believe is table 3 and the fiscal feasibility report, which is page 9. >> right. the one that you said no one could read. that one. right, ok, that is right because you have the phases. i just wanted to clarify. thank you. >> i can provide this to you if you like. >> thank you. >> anything else? than at any other questions? -- >> any other questions? thank you very much and good luck before the budget and finance committee. >> actually, that is table of you are on page 10 of the fiscal feasibility r

on the east side of the project site, immediately adjacent to the highest transit frequency, the m line extension, it drops down to 5. -- .5 spaces per unit and graduates to the west side. i am to emphasize that the planning department did an extraordinary job, an unbelievable amount of detail. the vast majority of this parking is in fact underground, which has been a policy goal of many members of this board and probably represents best practices. i think the most important point is this e.i.r. does not present the best-case scenario. we're not wearing rose-colored glasses. we're assuming that people don't ride transit the way we'd like. we're taking a pessimistic view, which is what we should be doing if we want to make sure we're capturing all the potential impacts. so just because we assume a lot of people are commuting by car to the south bay does not mean that will happen. in fact, there's a lot of research that would suggest that a fine-grained mixed use high density accessible neighborhood that has bike sharing, bike paths, walking paths, car sharing, a transportation demand mli

i would really like to see them do the adjacent rooms or do one floor at a time and work their way up or work their way down. it is sad when you have seniors who are so tired -- [tone] it is killing them, mentally and physically. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i live at the hillsdale hotel south of market. this has been my second go round with bedbugs. the first incident had was about five years ago. they came in and completely gutted my room and took it in and froze it. for two years, had no problems whatsoever. it only took one time for them to do that. it was done and over with. the second time, i've been fighting a for the last eight months. i've packed up my stuff no less than 10 times, moved by furniture, they would come in and tell me to pack up three days worth of clothes but but the other close in a bag and they would go in and sprayed a line around the room, i watched them do this, and that was the effect of their treatment. they tell me now it is going to be done in two more weeks and then again in two more weeks. after three treatments, the problem was still th

right now, it is sort of transit adjacent. to create a social and commercial heart for the district -- no one has really walked to meet any of their daily needs. it provides for a burst range of household types. the basic project components are these. i will go over these quickly. at the next hearing, we will talk about these in more detail. we thought it was important to go over them in a basic sense. one is a reconfiguration of the streets. improvements to open spaces and other public amenities. comprehensive transportation program. the pretty comprehensive sustainability program that includes infrastructure for water and energy. the block pattern today is not what we would call pedestrian oriented. it consists of very large blocks, much larger than we typically find in san francisco. you can see the radio pattern. it is fairly diffusing. there are not many connections to the outside grid. the project is going to be in filling the existing grid with new public streets and alleys. many of the existing streets will remain. the

that's going to mean something to the adjacent property owner. when you make a d.r. decision that find a way to form a compromise and to re-design a building that gives both neighbors a way to move forward, it improves the situation for both parties. that makes a lot of sense to everybody. but in a situation like this, where we're cutting into a balcony that he already has. and in going all the way back to the house, eliminate ago french door that he has accessing a deck, eliminating the possibility of a table being anywhere on this deck, it becomes just a walkway. so i would ask that you uphold the decision as it was previously made and let this project move forward. this is the sixth time we've been in a public hearing with this thing and it's a very minor thing. thank you. president olague: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? everyone has three minutes, because it's all based on the clarification. commission secretary avery clarified that at the very beginning, that this item is not a d.r. it's basically to clarify -- >> oh, absolutely. presiden