under the e.i.r. and then they come out in their responses and i just think that this is -- it is incumbent upon us to really have a broader conversation that requires starting from the beginning and so i go back to my comments that this spros a little bit chicken and egg. and as a project sponsor would say, i want to do this. and here's my project description. they don't have an incentive. and i would say the power to just say i want the zoning on this lot to be x, y and z and that is what i'm going to do. >> they can request it. >> right. but i'm saying with this particular project. i think that there are a lot of policy issues that are newer in the city. i'm just saying that i wouldn't expect that a project sponsor for this project would say, hey, i'm just going to build rm-1 and that's what i want to do. i think we're in agreement. i'm just pointing thaout our spros lail backwards sometimes. sometimes we have to state what we want first and then make an agreement around that. instead of putting pr

in order to be responded to in the final e.i.r., comments on the draft e.i.r. must be presented orally at the planning commission meeting to the planner by 5:00 p.m. on january 23, 2018. comments heard by public commenters today would not be responded to in the e.i.r. process. after that, a comments and responses document will be published. we anticipate publication in late spring of next year and e.i.r. certification hearing in summer, 2018. that ends my presentation. staff is available to answer if i questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you for that clear presentation. commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: on the full preservation alternative, it says number of stories, and says four, but the diagram looks like two stories for the full preservation alternative. is that correct? >> on the full preservation alternative we keep the double mass on the first floor. and then there's additional massing at the rear of the building. >> commissioner pearlman: i see that, but the other diagrams, there are four slices that indicate four floors, but on t

that is not to say we're still going to come back with an e.i.r. we will still finalize the e.i.r. but we have in some cases added or changed project components and then disclosed them in the final e.i.r. but as far as policy for rezoning, that is the director's call. >> yeah. commissioners, if i may, i can't ring in. my monitor isn't working properly. the issues that you're raising really aren't e.i.r. issues. if i may, they're really questions about the project proposal. and the question about zoning is one that there is any number of zoning districts that could be requested here. just like any piece of land in the city, you could -- any property owner can request a change to the zoning. it was not done here partially because it is a little unusual for us to take a small piece of land in the middle of the block and say we should change the zoning.

or in the absence of an e.i.r., that the project be cut in half. and i strenuously disagreed with the staff and spoke with all the higher-ups, and i didn't get anywhere. at an appropriate time, maybe the commission could discuss with the planning staff what is and is not an appropriate event it tie to a building for purposes of ceqa to require an e.i.r., because i think currently the interpretation is overbroad. they're applying this regulation about historic events to buildings that don't deserve really any special review and it's overreach. so i hope at an appropriate time you might discuss that. thank you. >> thank you. >> does any other member of the public wish to speak on a non-agenda item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close general comment. >> directors announcements. >> tim frye, department staff. director will be joining us shortly, but happy to forward any questions. no formal report today. >> item two, review of past events and announcements. >> commissioners, a few items to share with you. one in regards to the outstanding malsak appl

the draft e.i.r. found impacts relate to archeological resources and construction noise and air quality could be mitigated to a less than significant level. all other impacts were found to be less than significant. a meeting before the historic preservation commission was held december 6, 2017. i've provided you with the copy of the h.p.c.'s leter. they found the alternatives analyzed. today the department is seeking accuracy and adequacy of the information. for members of the public who wish to speak, state your name and speak slower and clearly so the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not here to respond to comments today. all verbal comments received today and during the public comment will be transcribed and responded to in a document. revisions to the draft e.i.r. will be made as appropriate. those interested in submitted written comments may do so by e-mail or hard copy to the e.i.r. coordinator, san francisco planning department 1615 mission street,

mitt investigation within the e.i.r. should include having our narrative and journey stories continue to renate and have a visible presence that should be recreated and relocated at a site we will deem later on. thank you. >> thank you, mrs. jordan. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm christine and i'm a member of the church also and founder of friend of the yellow brick road of 150 eureka. we are gay so we have a yellow brick road in front of our church. in 1979, we invited the community to right there literally indescribe in stone their lgbt memories, dreams and celebrations. and they responded. we had over 500 funeral services of people who died of aids during those years. many of them are memorialized. there is bricks celebrating weddings. there's the sisters of the perpetual indulgence with their first meeting there. this building was the community centre and it's full of history and where that history resides in this yellow brick road outside. i cannot be dug up, which is tragic. however, it can be easily reproduced f

this is not an e.i.r. it's a categorical exemption. i just have to say with all due respect to counsel for the appellant, i looked up chris durkin, unless there are three chris durkins, i came up with the same 1026 clayton appeal, and also 1055 asbury. to the speaker that said it's the dream home. no. it's a developer. that's fine. people can be developers, but you can't pretend that this is your dream home when it's one of a number of projects. that has to do with voracity. i'm happy to defer to the district supervisor in this case, but i hope it's a learning moment for the department. it's not categorically exempt if it has an effect on the a-1 historic resource. end of story. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: thank you. i'm going on my eighth year here at the board of supervisors, i've never seen reason to uphold a ceqa appeal dispute in my district. i think this may be the first one. where we are, there's a lot of questions about planning and building inspection and drs. ju

the e.i.r. will require the developer to analyze these resources and minimize impacts and minimize impacts to the extent feasible. he can then build the project, but within and consistent with the guidelines i would be happy to take any questions. >> president breed: thank you. seeing no names on the roster, i do have a question, before we move on to the planning department around the contaminated soil issue. can you explain that based on the presentation? when that information was provided to me, i was surprised that there was still the opportunity to -- that this project was still exempt under ceqa, when there's a possibility that there's a contaminated site. can you verify that, please? >> good afternoon, president breed. i'm lisa gibson, environmental review officer for the city. i can answer that question and refer it to staff for further information if you would like. the project site is on a list of sites that are ones where there have been prior contamination -- excuse me, the project si

planning department issued a community plan and exemption and it was found to be consistent with the e.i.r. the department has received five letters of support and three letters opposing the project. those have been passed forward and are included in the packets. letters of support from district 6 community planners, merchant of upper market, san francisco housing coalition and upper market community benefit district. those in favor are supportive due to the housing proposed, especially considering its proximity to jobs and transit. those in opposition to the project state that the construction will cause environmental harm. staff did receive a phone call today from some of the clinton park neighborhood and they had concerns in regard to the massing at the back of the project. and they were concerned about outreach from the project team. the department recommends approval with conditions for the following reasons -- the project complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code and is consistent with the general plan and octavia plan, especially for high-density housing in the

focused on a mitigation measure that i believe was taken from another project and did not belong in that e.i.r. it had to do with a walking tour and i addressed the commission on that point and raised the issue that a walking tour for a four-unit project was, perhaps, not appropriate. and my takeaway from that hearing was that a better mitigation measure would be assigned in front of the church. and i believe that was the commission's sentiment. after the hearing, i communicated with the staff and their response was, of course there's going to be a walking tour. so, i would like the -- to ask the commission to ask the staff to report back at a future meeting on that particular mitigation measure or to place this on the future agenda for further hearing. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to comment on a nonagendaized item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close general public comment. >> commissioners that places us under department matters. item one, director's announcements. >> there's no director's announcement today. >> item two, planning

it's not e.i.r. i appreciate president breed's comments. the thing to me is the preservation issues. there is evidence that this is historic resource. in the morning, we learned that coxhead house, i will not get into the history of this, though it's amazing, will be likely eligible listing as a local landmark. our own landmark designation program is backlogged in san francisco. it's not acceptable when it's against the wishes of homeowners. you only have to see pictures of this home, read what's in the record, to see the nature of the home itself. when i saw the proposal to construct a large home next door, along the windows that are part of the location, design and feeling of the home, i could not believe it was happening. in this case, i'm going to. what i would like to do is make a motion to table 19 and approve 20 and 21. and -- sorry about that. i am concerned there's a substantial evidence in the record before the board that the project presents unusual circumstances relating to historic resources and hazardous materials and as a res

first i want to note in the final e.i.r. certified, we have ceqa experience for mix of use and activation uses, industrial uses. there are uses that are ceqa cleared today. that's the path to the long term. not having an end user at this point that can pay the costs to rehab facility, the parties recommend that we go forward with this interim strategy where pier 48 is used sort of as it's used today for special events and parking uses partly for at&t park events and we work together towards what the long term is. division being that at any time during this initial 10 year period that we're recommending, if the port is able to identify some other space for the interim uses at pier 48, we would engage with the giants on a potential long term strategy and be provided the first option to negotiate with the port consistent with having wouldn't rfp and pier 48 we'd negotiate with them for long term vision that is complementary to what elseç is going on. if we're unable to come to terms, our goal is toç make sue pier 48 is rehabi