NBA championship overshadows relocation to San Francisco

Louis LaVenture : thepioneeronline – excerpt

While Oakland celebrated, lawmakers in Sacramento on Friday made the new San Francisco arena deal a lot easier to finalize when they included an environmental law exemption for the planned Warriors stadium at San Francisco’s Mission Bay in the state budget proposal unveiled last week.

The new development requires an environmental impact report detailing what wildlife and animals will be displaced by construction and the plans to rectify displacement, which will be waived for one year due to the new law exemption.

The Mission Bay Alliance is one of the main opponents of the proposed Warriors event center and according to them “The proposed stadium will have a disastrous impact on the health and welfare of thousands of patients and families.” They also stated the new arena would block access to medical services, make parking difficult and cause traffic around the area to hit a complete halt during the 225 events that are planned each year in addition to sports events.

The new arena is located near several hospitals, including those specific for women, children, cancer and cardiology. There is a public hearing regarding the San Francisco arena plan on June 30 at City Hall and public input is being listened to at the meetings until July 20... (more)

Neighbor Appeal Over “Scenic Vistas” Brings 480 Potrero in Front of the Planning Commission

Neighbor Appeal Over “Scenic Vistas” Brings 480 Potrero in Front of the Planning Commission

by Alex Bevk : sf.curbed – excerpt

480 Potrero is a project that proposes a six-story, 58-foot-tall, residential building on a vacant lot in Potrero Hill. The building would contain 77 residential units, ground floor retail, and 47 parking spaces in a one-level basement parking garage accessed from Mariposa Street. The project was exempt from having to do full environmental review, but that was appealed by the San Francisco Verdi Club, MUNA neighborhood association, and Potrero Hill neighbors due to objections over the “adverse effect on a scenic vista,” inevitable increase in population, and discord with the “character with the neighborhood.”
The project sponsor revised the proposal to address some of the appellant concerns, like adding ground floor commercial space, decreasing the residential unit count from 84 to 77, adding additional off-street parking, and decreasing the overall size of the building by 7,000 sq.ft. The appeal delays the fate of the vacant lot, which once housed a four-story live/work building that was demolished in 2005. If the Planning Commission votes on the side of the appellants, it’ll force the project to undergo a full Environmental Impact Report. If they uphold the exemption, they’ll then vote on the actual project entitlements.
· Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for 480 Potrero (pdf) [SF Planning]
· Upcoming Developments Waiting to Break Ground, Now With UPDATES [Curbed SF]
· CEQA In Action, Or Inaction, On Potrero Avenue [SocketSite]… (more)

The Result of Two Minutes of Testimony

The Result of Two Minutes of Testimony at the Land Use Committee Meeting is that discussions about CEQA reform will continue in San Francisco.

The Result of Two Minutes of Testimony at the Land Use Committee Meeting is that discussions about CEQA reform will continue in San Francisco.

In a stunning display of organization and passion, the Community CEQA Improvement Team together with speakers including former Supervisors Jake McGoldrick, Aaron Peskin and John Bardis pushed the popular agenda, resulting in Supervisor Jane Kim speaking out forcefully in favor of her version of CEQA reform, rebuffing Supervisor Wiener’s version of the legislation in this afternoon’s Land Use Committee hearing.

The outcome of today’s hearing will be a fresh review of new CEQA legislation from Supervisor Kim and the renegotiation of five points of Supervisor Wiener’s version:

  • 1)  Board Hearings of CEQA appeals should continue v. subcommittee hearings only
  • 2) The “Fair Argument” standard should be applied to every appeal
  • 3) Website notices of CEQA decisions should be published, but should also be circulated
  • 4) Documentation deadline for appeals should be maintained at the current standard
  • 5) Both ‘First Approval” and “Last Approval” triggers for CEQA-based appeals need to be reevaluated.

The number of speakers on opposing sides of the argument was very high–approximately 23 speakers came out in favor of Wiener’s version, and 49 against. Thanks to all who showed up or generously donated their time to contribute to tonight’s hearing. Thanks for your ideas and for speaking out clearly and forcefully. – Roland

%d bloggers like this: