Clerk Community Members will attend the meeting through Video Conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda, both channels 10 and 26 and sfg. Org are streaming the message across the screen. Comments during Public Comment are available by calling 4156550001, 1451400281, then press pound twice. When connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. When your item of interest comes up, dial starthree to be added to the speaker line. Best practice is to call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down your radio or television. In the alternative, you may email me, linda. Wong sf. Gov. Finally, cantonese and spanish interpretation are available. Chair fewer thank you, madam clerk. Will you please read item number 1. Clerk yes. Hearing on the budget for the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development includ
Minutes of this american Artifacts Program by going to cspan. Org and searching stonewall riots. Right now we go live to capitol hill for a Senate Foreign relations hearing on the Coronavirus Response and what the u. S. Is doing to prepare for future Global Pandemics. The hearing will focus on senate bill 3829 with senator murphy and i have introduced. Its written on paper, not on stone, which well talk about a little bit in the future here. This is an important endeavor that this committee is going to take up, indeed. Probably one of the weightiest matters that well deal with as we attempt to create a new shield to prevent a covid virus type attack be from happening again. The covid19 Global Pandemic has reaffirmed what weve long known and that is Infectious Diseases, particularly those of viral nature, do not respect borders. Theyre a threat anywhere, its a threat everywhere. Weve been right here to focus on our domestic response to this pandemic, but we ignore the spread overseas at
Insufficient or inadequate. They believe the circumstance eirs were not enough as well as a different project to be approved. Sequa requires study of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, promoting informed decisionmaking and public participation. Here, the eir presented circumstance alternatives including two full preservation and too preservation alternatives. Lhias position is that ten alternatives should have been study. This is unnecessary and not required by sers qua. Sequa. This contains the legally required reasonable range and provides ample information for analysis and consideration by you, the decision makers. And for an additional alternative not in the eir to be legally ar required, it must be different from those presented in the eir and must clearly lessen the projects significant impacts. On the last day of the Public Comment period, lhia submitted narratives and sketches for two projects and followed up with two more after the final er was published
Reduce loading impacts as dwell times for trucks and loading times would be reduced so they could get in and out of the building. This is not sequa issue. The appellant fails to meet the burden that the record supports reversal of the Planning Commission and dpw. It did not and cannot provide evidence in support of its evidence. The records supporting the determinations is thorough consisting of multiple years of study and analysis and based on facts and evidence rather than argument and infect allegation. Speculation. This project will transform and underutilized wallofftioff tens sites with 744 new homes. , 185 affordable units for seniors, childcare uses and neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses. We ask you reject these appeals and move forward today. Thank you, supervisors. Thank you. Any questions . I have a question of the proje project, is there a reason why it was infeasible to make a family unit affordable . So this project through the Development Agreement, it was d
Consistent with the policies and objectives of the citys general plan. The appeal also demands specific modifications to the project including the following. Limiting the height and modifications to the reuse Center Buildings and a reduction of the new building near laurel and euclid to preserve more open space and further limits on the types of nonresidential uses proposed. Related to the height of the Center Buildings, the Planning Commission supported the overall scale including the height because their placement in the center of the site set back from the public rights of way was a project objective. The project would place shorter buildings along the perimeter between 40 and 65 feet to serve the transition to the taller buildings in the center. A reduction in height of the Center Building would result in a reduction in dwelling unit count or to keep the unit count consistent, 744, and increase to other proposed New Buildings along the perimeter and compromising the compatibility.