at the intersection and one bloke away there's 3 major construction projects that will be going on for several years. if the stop is on the far side it will create gridlock. we feel that further down the line open stockton that there was a variant to not eliminate parking but just to reduce the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to two wired lanes we think that's a better solution. there's no need to pick a fight by removing parking. and finally we want again to caution that implementing

transit signal priority technology can be both a good and bad thing. in chinatown over the last 36 years we found that we always try to reach a balance with the different uses. and if buses always get priority it would create gridlock again. thank you >> thank you. >> good afternoon i was given the privilege of speaking out of order so i'm not the person whose name appears after chin. i'm michael and i live on libl street. i'm an immigrant from the northeast coast. i had the privilege of living in the areas of europe market and

the area between russian and knob hill i guess it's the extended chinatown and on the windy hilly part of the valley and had experience working with the same organization with muni and was involved with the planning staff. one quick comment it seems like we're getting questions today an individual proposals as well as some of the general proposals that maybe are couched in terms of the eir itself. in terms of the bus bulks i want to argue them with the previous speakers but i presume the eir authors take into account and look at the impact.

ditto with eliminating routes lightly served routes like the area of jackson. i would on washington about a year. again quantifiably how that impacts the investment i can't say. i i know in mire neighborhood there's been discussions about changing is 48 back when it was still the 11 hoffman and changes to the 37 and 35. again, if there's a balance in terms of the number of people that can be served i think the environmental impact is okay. and it's close to the end of what i'm going to say i hope the mta carries on after this

document has been approved. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm daniel. i'm speaking for myself today normally we serve to unit neighborhoods but i'm findings that some of the mta proposals are pitting us against each other. that's having an environmental effe effect. i live on barker street and my neighborhood has hospitals and churches and schools and hills so steep that cars are not allowed and sidewalks are

stairways. the proposal would just take the 3 jackson and make it evaporate leaving cars to pick up the slack. my great grandparents took the jackson streetcar and a hundred years later we have those growing lines of cars iding in front of the schools and that's because the pacific line as eliminated decades ago and the jackson is so inreliable commissioners i admit i drove her today. i feel very strongly that our environment needs more service not less. thank you very much

>> thank you. >> good afternoon i live on california street and i will try to tie some of this why the draft d i r is insufficient. i should note there's a lot of focus on the guidelines for sequa. it's interesting to pay attention to the finding of the legislature when they passed it. they denied the environment it means the physical conditions that exist in the area including and then it goes on to list aesthetic significant items. i would argue that a long-standing service like along

jackson street or china attain projects are of historic service that the community has relied on. that realigns and how it affects the quality of the life in the area specifically the 3 jackson i've paid attention but now for the third or fourth time addressing plans to eliminate the 3 jackson's. the d u r didn't mention the 3 jackson clearly they can't of analyzed the impact of the quality of life on the resident which is the percentage of vulnerable population that's realignment on this service, what are their incomes.

and because they haven't addressed those they haven't considered mitigations. like adjustments of some other services to provide some kind of an equal service. and looking at something like this like for the seniors who are trying to get to presidio and not looking at the impact for seniors who are using it for trait to van ness where there's a good connection for their district formal music and dance. and it doesn't consider the impact to the theatre downtown district which is a significant

issue for the lower income seniors who don't own cars and never have because they've relied on the 3 jackson pr it's not been dealt with - >> that's your time. >> sue. i was going to do written comments only but i feel the staff should have early warning. i've would go here since 1987 before that i lived near douglas and before that i lived on california. i've also lived in a hilly neighborhood. the environmental review and the mta think of the city as flat. it has mountains all over it.

going four blocks may mean traifrg going back going up and down hills. any eir that doesn't include maps is not a good eir but it doesn't provide the decision markers mta and the planning department with the ability to make effective decisions because i don't assume i know every block in the city by t you have to when you make those decisions and i'm talking to mta to zls is the planning department. and the information should be in the eir and should be given to decision-makers the blocks that lengthen the

city are all over is place. and it's different in chinatown and the blocks south of marketing are enormous and the planning department is looking at the blokes as a scope of distance. every time you use the term block it disenpowers the folks. by the time this eir comes back but if the tools are not provided shame on environmental view and shame on mta and the consultant as well. thank you >> is there any additional public comment?

>> good afternoon, members of the commission peter cowen with the housing organization. i realize our scope today is very narrowly around the eir and you have a responsibility to review the eirs but i want to talk about the transportation effectiveness underlying proposal and talk about how important it is. i think there are 3 things to patriot from our standpoint that are directly relevant. we need a transit dependent population. people have different dependency. and second we need to think about the t pe.

for the last 12 years we've been working on that and for growth and thirdly even more specifically the relationship of that growth to our housing element goals around who's supposed to be living in those communities. again, we have a diverse workforce and how does that diverse workforce utilize the transit so again service changes have to recognize that. that's where the t e p is important beyond the eir implementations. honestly, i think the eir process has been rushed and it's untimely the boards on recess and a lot of folks are taking a lot of summer vacations.

people are not here so they don't have time to provide that intelligent to his. but i think you realize is mta board should be talking about the service cuts and we'll be hearing about the service changes and i think it would be great for you to signal that advocacy. you might call for your own informational hearing as a followup to the eir hearing itself. so lastly, i want to emphasize the service changes which are being called variance or restructuring. if this is a transportation effectiveness program it's related to how this service

program works and those are open questions. i don't suggest that this is flawed but there are a lot of ground level analysis. you heard some people pointing out to you reasonably how there are some ideas. thank you >> thank you. any additional public comment? okay public comment is closed. commissioner yu >> so i think it was clear today from the comments that people want to talk about the service cuts. i want to thank the staff for holding the meats in the next few months so hopefully, we'll get f that information out to the public

>> i think to the point that this study does analysis the environmental impacts it appears to do it in an adequate manner but the scope of this project in general is very limited and that's the problem because as was pointed out by sue we live in a dense hilly environment even though we have a small city geographyly moving from one place to another is difficult and other thoughts has to be give to other transit lines that are similar connecting through market. the feeder lines that goes to all the hilly spots that people go into feed into forest hill station and don't have to make

their own way downtown or other parts vividly. so somewhere on say richmond and van ness ear that's y what we need to look at. we can only tweak this so much and pick up a few minutes or few seconds of transit time. for what it is they do a good job on the analysis >> i want to thank the members of the public for their comments. i realize that to the extent that the eir can look at the things like grade in various streets along varies transit lines and their crossing lines would be something that the eir

should be able to mention and maybe looking at the blocks like a quarter of mile and tenth of a mile i think when you're describing the physical conditions would make the idea work out while >> i think that the growth is protected and clearly brought in line with transit effectiveness. i hearsay concerns about transit reductions is not transit effectiveness. i want to see that the lane and where we're striving for parking reductions and those

neighborhoods not obey fully realized were parking reduction i meant to say that potentially, we need to look for growth of lines not reduction of lines people will have fewer cars. we're planning this neighborhood with transit first in mind. the other point was made about the historic aspects of are certain neighborhoods and people living in neighborhoods historically had transit and people did not have cars or garages in their homes. that was strongly stateed by the people on jackson line. we will not change the fact there are no abilities for adding parking garages in those

areas. schools are intenseing. we're looking at the growth and increase in student attendance. i think all of those issues he need to be brought into the eir and have status so look at the impacts. >> commissioners we can move onto the item 13. request for additional use authorization >> good afternoon commissioners i'm with the san francisco

planning department. before i present a request under planning commission thirty 3 to intensify project up to 32 beds. and the bicycle parking i requirements. the project is locked on van ness between 31st and a thuth zoning district. commissioners the proposed project seeks to establish a housing unit since the late 1990s that are in great needs of housing. it's geared toward the lgbt community. the project proposes to upgrade in part and add restroom

facilities. it meets all the planning policies and codes. commissioners the department has received much public input in opposition to the project. there's been two stated letters and phenomenon conversations concerns about intense if i had concerns. there's many letters of supports sent them geared to the lgbt community given safety concerns and the significant numbers among the homeless population. since the submission i've received a number of letters in

support i'd like to provided those to you and i believe those were 50e78d to you but i'd like to give you physical copies. the staff recommendation the proposal and i'm here for questions >> project sponsor loophole. >> supervisors. >> thank you very much good afternoon, commissioners thank you for your time. i'm david campos and i represent district 9 the location where this proposed change is happening. the happened about three years ago when we were approached pointing out issues in the way

that homeless lgbt folks were being treated and how many of them felt unsafe in the shelters increase the city. we're proud of the fact we have a strong safety net in san francisco the hearing was an

you have an entire city first name that's been working on this proposal. i don't think we would be here as quibble even though it's taken some time without my staff who will proceed me but ever in

the officer who come in and make sure we put this project together as quick as we can. i want to thank the community center. they've been running the shelter we're proposing to expand by 23 beds. they've proved to be the center who provides services but has a great relationship with the surrounding community and they reach anti to the neighborhood to make sure the concerns of every resident are addressed. jenny who has been instrumental in pointing out this issue and others who have been at the

forefront of making sure we at city government understand the migrate of the lgbt folks. i want to thank the people who have volunteered their time to process this project. one gentleman who used his expertise and one of our staff who's done a great service and paul and the entire construction company that have donated their labor. i especially want to thank the members of the community who have worked with us and hearing out the reasons for the project and trying to identify some of the concerns. i want to thank the homeless men

and women who have testified at the board who have coverage and been encourages enough to do that. one of the things we wanted to make sure was that in expanding the exit shelter we didn't create any additional problems in that neighborhood. one of the issues that was brought up is that somehow the economist shelter was creating problems at the nearby park. we weren't sure that was a legitimate concern but we wanted to fully explore that. we met with the police department and we actually went out there and talked to the residents to have a better understanding of whether there was a collaboration and some of the issues at the park. i can safely and objectively say

that while tyler issues we're addressing they're separate and apart from anything that's happening at the shelter. we take those issues seriously and we're working with the police department and other individuals who are the

so we do have to make sure we address the needs of every homeless folks. that's what this shelter t is about. it's the first step. i'm proud