it took them a lot of time and i would want to be paid like steve jobs to do this. the page i am referring to in the eir is section 4f, page 10. the accuracy of the map on 11th street. the lack of the p.o.e. it is missing an entire block of designated p.o.e.'s. that is it. >> before we start if i could have everyone lined up to move to the other side of the room so you do not create a fire hazard. >> hi, i work at flynn's on 11th street, 333.

my concern as it does not take the existing businesses into account and is not discuss the economic impact that new housing in westerns, will have on those businesses. we have nearly 50 employees and there are small businesses that operate on the block. there are literally hundreds of jobs that are dependent on nightlife in the area. these jobs include artists, performing, security staff, kitchen staff a much senators, lighting engineers, and so on. they drive wages from the nightclub and activity on 11th street. placing housing next to hot -- nightclubs create conflict. a single labour cost our business hundreds of thousands of dollars. -- neighbor cost our business.

these businesses are a large part of the tourist-drawn neighborhood and their economic report can be given a fair count in the draft dir. -- eir. >> i am the executive director of the california music and culture association. we're a nonprofit that advocates for the entertainment and nightlife community. we're also very appreciative of of -- of the number of hours that have gone into this plan but we do have some concerns with inaccurate statements that we have found and identified in the er and we will urge you to amend the eir. the plan historically ignores nightlife venues and concerns about longstanding consequences

on these venues including historically lgbt cultural sites that are not included in the eir, the eir fails to include and inaccurately categorizes and a number of venues especially along the 11th street corridor. we believe that if these venues are not included in the environmental impact report we cannot fully realize the impact of this plan will have on them. in the few instances where they are mentioned, the eir barely touches on the cultural as that -- except when it suggests the displaced sites can be honored with a plaque. with all due respect, the destruction of nightlife in lgbt space to pave the way for condos, leaving a plaque to name the destroyed space is no way to honor and maintain cultural spaces in san francisco. we will be supporting in writing our comments and suggestions but

we do urge you to take a look at it to amend the deir. thanks. >> commissioners, director. i am terence allen. i live on folsom street. i have two documents that will assist in my presentation if the wizard of oz could put them on the screen. the first document is a listing of the missing and inaccurately defined entertainment venues throughout the plan and in the bordering neighborhoods. i also have a map, both of which will be submitted formally. the map correct the inaccuracies. this list of those items in yellow is where there is no listing. the items in green is where the listing is inaccurate or

missing. when i say inaccurate, for example, the impact of a place of entertainment with and an extended hours permit is significantly different than the impact of a billiard parlor. many of the businesses that are listed as billiard parlors are actually places of entertainment with extended hours premises license. or they do not exist at all on the map. so to adequately address those impacts when you do not have that information accurately represented is difficult at best. my second is a actual revision to the map which is labeled as figure f4 and it more accurately defines those businesses with their actual use

and i will submit copies to the secretary and we will be submitting them with our formal report. the soma plan and eir very carefully analyzes and provides a buffer zones for the impacts that residential enclaves may feel from the development interests that are being proposed. the businesses and the agglomeration of those businesses with in this western some of plan have no buffer zones. even though they are referred to in the eir, they do not exist. it is our belief that a buffer zone around a business is as important to this potential residents as the buffer zone along -- around the enclaves. thank you. >>

president fong: i will call a couple of names. [reading names] >> i work at slim's on 11th street and i am part of the task force that developed the western soma plan. i would like to speak to one aspect of that plan as it impacts 11th street. i joined the task force, -- as i joined the task force, we were in a conflict with some residential neighbors on 11th street and i brought up that we should not allow more residential building on 11th street. the way it is that is not possible. in shortt if

you took a liberal democrat from san francisco, you can -- they can share a space with a religious republican from texas, but why would you want to do that? you know going in you will have problems and if we can avoid that on 11th street, i think we should and now would be the time. thank you. >> mr. president, commissioners. i am an attorney in san francisco, i specialized in entertainment venues. 50% of every large entertainment venue that has built -- been built in the last five years i have had something to do with. i am concerned about this plan and certain aspects. it is a good plan but 11th street mixing of new commercial condos and slims and dna lounge will destroy all those the news.

half of my practice and people ask me what i do, immediate the neighbors, i go to hearings and it is all about neighbors coming in and complaining about existing venues. i was involved with the slim's situation, before they let that be built as live-work, they signed a notice of special restrictions. it is on the day that tells them they are moving into a 24 hour day commercial zone with nightclubs and living next door to a blacksmith's shop. that same buildings has complaint against dna and slim's and has cost the client over $100,000. we need a buffer zone for

entertainment. thank you for helping with that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 989 cap street. i am worried the draft eir discounts lgbt spaces in western soma. many are bars and clubs that have not been accounted for. the clear community has lost many bars and clubs in this area and people in this community look to these places as a safe haven and they are extremely important. even though the report does not mention them based exist and need to be counted. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i am here representing the entertainment commission. when we set up a special group

to look at the eir and impacts on entertainment and the neighborhood, we have three complaints that we would like to bring before you that were not addressed in the eir. i will not reiterate 11th street which you have heard but we do support many of the ideas and we will submit that to you in writing. the other one is the accessory entertainment as addressed in the eir. this was produced before there was limited live performance introduced to san francisco through mirkarimi's office at that time. it takes a citywide ordinance and restricted even further, even though the entire city has adopted this, the limited live performance. even when another neighborhood close to west soma tried to stop

limited live performance which only goes until 10:00 p.m., it is not amplified and has certain restrictions on it that make it compatible with a neighbor heard, there were not allowed to remove themselves. this western soma plan in the eir goes against accepting limited live performance that is extended throughout the city. also as far as we're entertainment will be permitted, we believe that in the area that the neighborhood will allow entertainment, the eir did not address areas where there are no places that are actually able to house entertainment at this time and very, very few whiteley, there are two or three spaces that what be available -- that would be available for entertainment. the estimated cost several million -- is several million. if we are trying to preserve

entertainment and the culture of this neighborhood, we find those three points in the er to not agree and since i made it through, i have a letter here from tom temprano who will address you in writing. he is on the stabilization fund advisory committee. he expresses serious concerns that this does not address the cultural impact and will have an existing impact. western soma has a history that the eir acknowledges but does little to protect. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> i come to you as a musician and supporter of nightlife in the city. i want to emphasize how much

these clubs mean in terms of a cultural hub for san francisco. i think that this report does a great deal of the ignoring of the nightlife venues and this could be detrimental in the future to having a place for musicians to rally in the city. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> i realize the draft of the eir does not take much consideration of my life in the neighborhood and as nightlife businesses -- those mean a lot to san francisco. i am west -- concerned that the plan will have an impact to the historic entertainment venues in

the area. this area has already lost a lot of nightlife venues and i wish to see the night life in this area at all life. thank you. president fong: thank you. is there any more public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. the reason the eir is listed as to give the information important to making your decisions and i want to address to aspects of the deir that do not do enough. the democratic discussion is incredibly superficial. all it presents is a curse -- cursory information. the 2000 and 2010 census data is readily available and could

easily have been and needs to be incorporated in the eir. attached is two pages, we did a quick and dirty table based on the census tracts in the adjacent areas. your staff aides to refine that to match the boundaries if possible. the population has increased by 50% in the area. the eir needs to project also what kind of increase in population we should expect in the coming 10 years at least in 20 years if they rezoning is adopted. we expect more. the demographic data is important. the one thing not available today from the senses is the household income data which is crucial because that is how we measure gentrification's impact on our neighborhood. this is one of the fundamental issues of this whole process.

that data should be available by the end of the year by -- before the er is certified by the board of supervisors and it should be incorporated by reference and added when it becomes available next year. the second thing that -- it is good to see the health department approached the health call the adopted in this plan and the eir. the discussion is so technical, it is impenetrable. you could not learn from that discussion that prevailing winds in san francisco, from the west and northwest. you would not learn specifically how great a contribution and the i-80 freeway in the south of market contributes to air quality impact although it is mentioned. it is not really detail. you would not see in plain language that the impact downwind from the highway are

severe. the modelling is general, it is not location all. you have to read it yourself to see if you can understand it. the bottom line is the area of south of market where we proposed and that is -- i was on the task force, that has among the worst air in san francisco because of these factors and very possibly the very worst air quality in san francisco. it is not a good place for housing. housing should be ruled out not just because of the commercial strategy but for public health issues as well as a mitigation measure. our plan does propose that. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> hello, i appreciate the opportunity to address you. i have been a member of the western soma citizens planning task force. most of my concerns are with

components that are not present within it rather than objections to what is there. you have heard quite a bit in concerns to resolutions regarding entertainment, the displacement and compatibility of housing and existing usages for that, so that is an area i hope can be redressed and studied more in the final version of this. most of the concerns are long 11th street and there are also some along folsom street. we have heard about the -- selected implementation of limited live performance. we would like to see that more are in the plan. allowing -- it is restricted in most areas of soma that it should be allowed in. there should be acknowledgment of the shifting population. soma has a rich and vibrant history in supporting the arts. property has been historically cheaper and we have our

commercial spaces that were adopted by many of these groups to do group housing, presentation space, and performance space. my predecessor on the task force was displaced after joining -- our organization will be ending and this is not a unique situation. we're at the second development wave and we will see a few likely independent spaces lose their bases after this. we have still institutional spaces that surround us. a lot of our independent community will be displaced and it would be ideal to see if there is a city policy or acknowledgement within this location that would help to represent this historically. i do not know what the solutions are but rep changes going on in the neighborhood. most of the concerns i did see printed seemed to emanate from another group i was.

another group. i did not see the concerns that were expressed today. most of the concerns that were represented around increasing the residential capacity in many cases go against what the plan stated as its original goals. mitigate to the fullest extent possible neighborhood impact resulting from impact and stabilize the neighborhood against proposals and developments, maintain and encourage the existing community and cultural diversity. hopefully those will be the principles that the plan rests on rather than demand for the highest density possible within those areas. i will submit something in writing to the commission that will outline this and i appreciate your time today. thank you for hearing this. president fong: thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i am chair of the western soma

task force but i am speaking today as an individual. i would like to address some of the transportation analysis in the eir. transportation planners, we experience a considerable amount of pushed back from the transportation planners and consultants over the course of developing this eir. they tend to have this mentality of living in a bubble where the area that is being studied is a blank slate and they get to move housing and streets and transportation elements around. whereas the western soma plan is based upon what is there on the ground. just to give you an idea. residential is primarily north of harrison street. service and light industrial, business is south of harrison

street. we recommended the designation of this -- the streets such as howard and fulsome in the midst of the residential area as community servings streets and those of the paris and as regional serving streets. -- harrison as regional serving streets. there is the distribution of truss routes south of harrison street. they say it does not require a mitigation plan as recommended in the plan but truck routes are not included in the existing controls and would not be recommended in the higher growth alternative. no matter which alternative you ultimately adopt, please move the traffic away from our homes and our families and our recreational facilities by supporting the designation of truck routes as recommended in the western soma plan. thank you. president fong: thank you.

is there additional public comment on this item? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioners, questions, comments? commissioner antonini: as a summary of what i have heard and the issues that were presented today where it seems as though the public who spoke today felt there are things that need to be addressed in the comments and responses. just to summarize, impact between entertainment and housing issues that can be properly and complete at -- analyzed and the failure to completely analyze the cultural and historic role that i live played in the area and lgbt was brought up by a couple of different people. and the adequacy of the listing of the entertainment venues is a complete -- is a complete or not

complete. also the fact that whether or not there report analyzes buffer zones around the 11th street entertainment area or other entertainment areas. i cannot say for sure whether it is in there or not but i will read more carefully to see if it is analyzed. and then limited live performance issue, the distinction from on limited live performance was pointed out. -- unlimited live performance was pointed out. and demographic analysis was as fresh as it could be and took into account the 2010 census and air quality impact and transportation impacts with the thought being that we had to make sure that one of the alternatives involved, funneling traffic into areas that were away from residential enclaves as much as possible and then doing analysis on that.

and began -- that might be in there but i am not exactly sure. there are certain subtleties in the comments but i appreciate the comments. they're good ones and we will see the answers and comments and response. i will study this at greater length before the next hearing. commissioner wu: 4 today, i have -- for today, i have two comments. if the census numbers are not available, possibly there is the american community survey that gives us a sense of the change over time in demographics. i have a process question about what they follow on is. this is an area community plan. what is the environmental process when the project within the plan area come in the future? commissioner sugaya: i will

write something before the deadline. i would like to -- i know that the letter will be responded to. i would like to have staff pay particular attention to the very last paragraph. >> if that concludes public comment as well as commissioner comment, the public hearing is concluded. we would mention that written comments will be accepted at the planning department until 5:00 p.m. on august 6, 2012. that concludes the public comment on this item. thank you. you are now at the general public comment. the public may address you on items of interest to the public it is falls within the subject

matter and jurisdiction of this commission. president fong: public comment. >> i really like our government system in san francisco. i have been doing some research since i talked to you and i have to make a correction. in allowing the conversion of convents, monasteries, and other similar religious facilities, the word that is too broad turns out to be the word facility. so, i am not sure i can find it fast enough. just trust me, it is a very broad word. until this supervisors meeting, -- the supervisors' meeting, -- the intent of allowing the

conversion of convents, monasteries, and other religious order facilities was to allow the conversion of religious housing and i am going to try to make that the -- how those words reflected in the proposed ordinance. thank you very much for listening to me. president fong: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.