Heard the person believes that of flaltd and because it used the present land value instead of the lands use is there any legal stand. Doorstop mirena burns through the president i think i want to address one point and more directly the pot about the land value the first point i want to address is that the alternatives feasibility studies way part of the Planning CommissionDecision Making around approving the project the ceqa findings that are discussed were the ceqa approval for the project not the certification finding what is before this board a certification of the eir not the project approval so there is two different slightly different standards for looking at alternatives depend on where youre looking an analysis versus a reservation to a project for the process of approving the project. Maybe i can rephrase are you able to talk about the ceqa appeal before the board and whether or not you doing the presents land value is the appropriate standard. The board is looking at the reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the projects under consideration like the project approval Decision Maker was the Planning Commission had enough options to look at it and the eir actually did not reject any of the four alternatives discussed as the 3 alternatives discussed rather as imagine feasible it looks like at the potential feasible this metal shed alternative the presentation the reduced density and the new alternative was required under ceqa those alternatives were rejected as infeasible through the approval process this is what the planning that is was a large project authorization so it should have been appealed to the board of appeals now getting to your question for informational purposes as i understand that the Feasibility Analysis look at in volley ball the land the land value as opposed to so the acquisition costs the sponsor paid in the site there is a somewhat case that came out that concerned steve jobs hours in palo alto where it was argued that steve jobs should have preserved his home in palo alto instead of demolishing it not infeasible to preserve this house it was steve jobs and had enough money to do that the court found not looking at the specifics of the particular pertaining to see whether or not they can afford to do what you want to do them but a reasonable investor and that case is not on point but similar as i understand the appellants are arguing we should be considering that the Planning Commission should consider its analysis the regular meetings are held on the second and fourth tuesday of each month. Of this naeflt to reject this not the land use but the project sponsor paid for the land 10 years ago and if you analysis this to the steve jobs you should look at the land value thats what the person would do not circumstances of this project sponsor. That is thorough answer. So i think the best one ive gotten to that question. Commissioner peskin. Is that a published decision. I dont have the citation. Supervisor cowen. Thank you supervisor president london breed. Tidal 0 move on to talk about the views i think that views everyone know there is beauty views in potrero hill and heard remarks in Public Comment i was hoping someone would detail what kwflgz a project to be an in fill appropriate proje project. 3 criteria for an in fill project it is defined and the 3 car criteria are it is surrounded by urging use the project is an employment for an employments or commercial use and the third proximity to transit the 3 criteria. One more time a little bit louder were trying to turn up our volume. Surrounded by urban uses and has promised to transit and transit meets a standard and an employments project or a residential project okay thank you question about height and bulk he know it is a touchy topic whats the height that was analyzed in the eir. 68 feet. Thats standards all right. Pdr and umu is a pretty important to discuss so could someone talk about the overall pdrs Square Footage is lost you heard in the remarks of the public empowers so what is the overall pdrs any discrepancy in that number you know the loss that was analyzed in the eastern neighborhoods eir what was anticipated and castro hill showcase square plan and how much loss have weve seen to data two part question. Thank you supervisor cowen so another handy overhead with the pdrs loss same concept residence on the eastern neighborhoods eir and this is as of july 1st, 2016, the eir had at Planning Commission in their motion to civil right the eir accepted option c agency is amount of pdrs that was expected to be lost and in showcase square nine hundred and 91 plus square feet and in all the ooermgz 4 millions 9 hesitate plus square feet so almost a maintains in showcase square and 5 million overall and projects in showcase square lost one and 32 square feet of pdr thats 13 percent of the estimates and the projects that are allowed will remove another 23 thousand 22 more percentage that is the projects go about discussed and others 3 thousand square feet the for essential is 40 percent of what is expected in this area that is projects adrc pdrs hooper and like projects that take away and projects adrc. Whats the rational hidden rezoning. Well have to stack it back to the eastern neighborhoods adopted in 2008, after 10 years of conversation the basis of plan was to protect spiritual space pdr space spiritual from the 19 vcr mushy zone as office as of right and housing as of or the and allowed housing and cu and a ton of uses theyre moving in the right direction to each other and we recognize the need to protect the bluecollar and is communities benefits and housing in concentrates areas for the childcare and others consolidated was than over a large area the eastern neighborhoods plan was that compromise half of the lands was zoned pdrs so much more reflective no office and housing was allowed and the other half was approved as user mixed use that allowed pdr and loud retail and a housing for the first time and generated into the Housing Units than required elsewhere in the city and generated the Public Benefits from the impacting impact fee we generated over 50 Mental Illness of revenue that would not have been gun generated we can go on and on but if you have other questions ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Im sorry supervisor cowen i do want to add ward to the pdrs loss as steve mentions an issue that hark end to the eastern neighborhoods the eastern neighborhoods that pdr is a significant pack under 3 of the alternative as well as interesting the in project alternative thats if the area was not zoned projected to be a significant pdrs loss happening from a ceqa stand point thats an impact that was identified in the eastern neighborhoods eir we recognized this project in the Environmental Impact we recognized this tracked down to that art disclosed and analyzed Significant Impact so this is an issue that one the topics that it pertains to the area plan analyze rather than this project our sticking with the ear plan which is the area plan in general how many projects built in this area plan. How many plans have been built. Maybe you can explain the difference between the projects. Steve Planning Department staff again, im not we know exactly when projects or how many the sum totals. One 50 for all the eastern neighborhoods. So my colleagues said one and 50 overall in the eastern neighborhoods some are small like the daggett with the propreponderance to be built on showcase square lets monarch with the parks and a common theme in the comments can you talk about what park projects are contemplate and completed for the eastern neighborhoods. Sure so Department Staff ill admit im not the staff that is working on the day to day of the implementations but have a spreadsheet okay specific to open space the eastern neighborhoods plan has funded the daggett park that is directly across the street with a one acre to be opened in the next few weeks and funded the green project that is open space project and opportunity the rehabilitation the jackson park and funded bug projects like the fillmore e fulsome. Sfgovtv please. Thank you heres an overhead so a new park lefthand side brand new on fulsome and off the map the rehabilitation of south park currently underway projects that are funded along with other projects that are budgeted but waiting money to come in like the rehabilitation of gene friend playground and many projects skaufrtsz throughout the eastern neighborhoods. What is the planning code require when building new parks. What does it require in open space for a project like this. I believe 80 square feet theres reminders on the developments itself and then the fee money that goes towards open space to maybe speaking but 80 square feet per units for open space if it is private and 54 if it is public. Actually, if i can clarify those numbers that the gentleman is mentioning has to do with with the amount of open space by the project sponsor on the project site and its theres a distinction between via assessable to a certain unit verse assessable to all of the opts out of the project the pubically assessable parks and open space that above and beyond the private. Im glad you answered i dont know if you can quantify but what the project proposing to provide. I can ask the project sponsor if you dont know. It would be 50 thousand square feet total. This the last section has to do with with transit and traffic and a hot topic that is impressed but is mta staff come to this mike potrero hill is poorly provided with transit and particularly talk about the timing associated with the 16th street Improvement Project and weve been hearing a lot about this to comend. Hello julia operation and switzerland manager anothers sfmta im very excited about the transit investment weve made within the last two years plus the work that is coming within the last two years as part of 10 Percent Service increase weve launched the 16th street which is a new line providing access to barts and making connects both mission bay and theres the frequency on the it 2 fillmore and we have both extended the hours of townsend so weve made it an 18 Hour Services that used to end at the 7 00 p. M. And increased the trekcy from 20 to 15 minutes and also working on Capita Investments youve alluded to our board has all right approved transit on this lanes and others transit appropriate futures for 16th street which is essentially like a brt bus Rapid Transit were working towards getting some of the low costs pieces of that on the ground by 2017 and the full project which includes a dedicated transit lane for potrero hill and the extension of the 22 fillmore that requires octavia boulevard work into mission bay by january of 2020 that is a fully funded project one that is all right completed pits primary entering that project benefits part of funding plan that comes from eastern neighborhoods money about thirty percent of it we also have been a 10 minute walk of the site. The connections to Market Street and chinatown i believe that is a transit rich area we are always working to make improvements and to that end we have been working over the last 6 months with Community Leaders in the dog patch in coastline and in anybody to try to identify Additional Service opportunities and we plan to have more public dialogue over the next year on this topic. All right. The appellant contends the traffic analysis is incompletes largely balls is it relies on summaries before the u usf hospital opposite side and not including an analysis of the impacts of the possible proposal or tear down of 280 any are those items that the department analyzed. Supervisor cowen wade with Planning Department staff the original analyze that we when this project started we took counts in 2012 thats when the project first filed applications we took counts in 2014 at the a select if you intersections between the draft eir and the responses we took counts addressed select intersection in 2015 and 8 to 10 months after the hospital opened in mission bay and our results of those counts the analysis had really not changed by the draft eir and is comments document in regards to 280 this is a highlevel studies that we dont consider foreseeable through the ceqa process how we define the cumulative promotions not analysis any potential speculative impacts from that project. Wow. Okay i assume you didnt study the impacts of the proposed warriors stadium coming in. The cumulative analyze for the transportation study used growth assumptions that were in the eastern neighborhoods plan and then grown out through projections at the time, we did the study at the time in mission bay and proposal that the worries now sort of have an improved project if approved the so there were growth assumed at the sight and that factored into the traffic analyze the specific warriors project per say was not accounted in the traffic analysis but based on the analysis that away was done if the eir the times periods and the over lapsing of conclusion changed our conclusions in the eir. Can you summarize our traffic analysis. Yes. We studied 14 intersections 14 intersections. I dont mean to be difficult but list all 14. Oh, man lets do this we have a graphic. A graphic. A map. Okay. So well do it highlevel our support team get the details so through the traffic analyze 14 intersections then what. So under the metric of the automobile dla detail looked at the existing conditions and project conditions and future cumulative conditions under the exists plus project we identified Significant Impacts as a result of the project at 3 intersections and under cumulative conditions we identified an impact at a fourth intersection when we have a Significant Impact we try to identify feasible mitigations we worked with sfmta staff on identifying those mitigation measures and two of the intersection we to identify the feasible mitigations and then we that was one of the tops we analyzed in transportation and looked at the impacts to people walking and bicycling and loading and construction and emergency assess. You looked at bicycling you heard there was a complrment that was recently hit by a car and the project is not even built not to isolate that project but many projects in the pipeline or not on line as well to be honest this is the one portion of the analysis that i have the most concern with just isnt jiving we have problem now were not near build out to what were projects to be and so this is concerning planning thank you for answering all any questions and mta i dont know if there is anything you want to add about traffic calming studies or analysis. Id like to add the 16th Street Project is a complete streets project so in addition to transit safety and reliability investments on 16th street includes the investments with new Traffic Signals to make it easier to corresponding and short crossing distances and investment in bicycling other than 17th street including the new transit lanes but to be fair 16th street is though a significant amount of improvements is it so with only street and in the potrero hill showcase square planned area so when you go into this area now there is real congestion around the round about getting into mccoppin and getting on to 280 and you know the analysis is almost silent on the possible tearing down the freeway the impact will be so this is im going to pause and thank you for allowing me an opportunities to ask those questions and colleagues thank you for letting me rays those and supervisor peskin has a few issues i dont know if ive left anything urban turned thank you madam president. Supervisor peskin. Thank you madam president and next slide, please supervisor cowen asked many of the questions i was curious that helps to reduce any questions by quite a bit of so one about an issue of fact your number was 3043. So one was just an issue that hasnt been resolved. They showed a total loss of pdr of 823,760 ft. 2 which doesnt obviously hit the 991,463 ft. 2 that was the preferred alternative in the eir and 2025 your number is about half of that so i just wanted to try to understand why your sets of numbers are different. Theres is a great detail and project by project and it is in approval in unit counts and yours is just a male made a number and in so far as you include that attachment has there been some analysis as to whether or not their numbers are valid. Im not saying that your numbers are approved i just want to resolve the issues with that. Steve can you just give us a few minutes to look at that i have not looked at this list but i go through with our data team and see where the discrepancies are with that. And then, maybe some highlevel observations aboutthis project that maybe transcend this project i was on the board at the time that presided over the 2008, actually for many, many, years but in 2008 i was on the Land Use Committee the that pres. Breed serves in now and what i think the industrial m on m2 zoning allowed all sorts of things that would have fundamentally change that neighborhood and i think that correct analysis and in some ways what we are discussing here today through this project we are looking back and now getting onto a decade later they both happened actually much faster than any of us into the paid it so it raises some questions that are implicatedin this eir and the cir tears off the 2008 and it makes one raise questions which if we if we are at 3015 units we are 80 or past what we analyzed and we are about to hit that ceiling. So assuming for the sake of discussion and we are at 3043 we are darn close to what was analyzed for the planfrom that 2008 eir. What happens when we get our next appeal for a project. That will clearly take us past that 3080,what will mrs. Jones say then . We are actually cognizant of this issue. We are analyzing projects that are within that projection total however, we are considering the issue of how essentially, how long can we continue to tear off the eastern neighborhoods eir. We are looking at well one thing to understand about the Residential De