that could go towards the mass transit system that's the way to go. the sierra club opposes the height of the project the high wind created by the project will not only cast shadows and bicyclists will be threatened and speaking of the bicycles two of the harder parts to bike in the city are polk street near the federal and state building and the sf puc building and on market where the towers are please reconsider this draft eir and thank you very much. >> thank you. next speake . good afternoon commissioner president wu good to see the new commissioner here welcome and

returning commission. i'm dawn i'm the chair of the polk's neighborhood association we have serious concerns with the project at hand i ask the responsibility of a new development to fit into the character is it expected that the character of the existing neighborhood would changed to accept a very different building coming out it. where i live is east of polk street and north of california. my neighbors and i raerl willfully will walk towards van ness even on california and certainly south of california going to the west because of the extreme winds that are just difficult very knowledge comfortable and put polk all

those neighborhoods really out of minds of places you 80 want to shop the world ends after polk street it's not comfortable going there with this new huge huge proposed building going up the additional wind will be crazy. and the neighbors are they expected to buckle up and power walk through the additional winds are should we be looking at communication like maybe the option d is something that is shorter and fits better into the environment and didn't make a difficult situation worse please carefully look at the wind impacts >> is there any additional public comment.

>> ma'am, if you lived be so kind to speak into the microphone. >> and, of course, mr. harvey lange. >> san francisco housing authority 23 years. >> i am at the martin luther king apartments. >> let's start with a peculiarity are a of things. the penal codes i know we don't have much time. first and foremost there's a penal code article 7 that deals with the co-op to respond to the regulatory units they have at

john stuart deny their jobs i launched a suit actually in 2011 and we're talking about the shadow i didn't work i was here and he was here of july 17th of 2014. we had asked a in question i believe were you there okay. we talked with ms. breeding and a couple of 0 people you look familiar. and we had asked you a question the question was first and foremost if you find out we could talk to the district attorney we not only have the shoddy work with mr. olsen >> make sure we're talking about the project. >> yes. yes. yes. we're talking about article 14 being

broken shoddy work having to take advantage submit documents to the company people don't want to fix anything they want to come back no, they don't want to come back they want to put people in situations and worker situations and he's part of that article 14 by law rehabilitation still in effect 1968 being executive director and a plethora of other violations we have contacted the feds we want to know what happened to the situation and like him to say what he wants to say. >> we talked to the da on fraud

and concerning the city and have not been addressed of that problem. >> so we like to any public comment? to the da on fraud we have evidence right here we want to be able to present it as soon as possible. okay. thank you >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners commissioner president wu joel electrical workers local 6 we recently viewed the project at your union

hauling hall he the developer talked the proposed project potential issues construction is noisy. construction is a little bit dirty and we it brings back memories in the c p m project the transportation issues, etc. and we're confident that the draft eir for the proposed project is complete and adequate thank you. thank you. next speake >> sue hester i will be submitting written comments i want to participation and i want the commission to pay attention the eir is supposed to have an understanding of housing policy that is in the master plan.

and there's a lot of housing issues that are being slid right over in the eir and probably in the project. the housing approval is not the same as housing affordability because we have built a lot of housing in the city this is housing under the definition of housing in the planning code that is not housing available being occupied by real people without fact or facts in who is going to be served and marketed too are they bone fide residents or transient are they second and third and fourth heirs united

for people that have more money than brains or housing for people who spelling need housing the articles are full of the housing market being insane in san francisco i understand if you don't understand if i don't belong in the planning commission but right now writing we have a situation where the developer has information who is he going to market those unite to who is he going to market those condos to fore every developer has the information or else they wouldn't embark on the situation she should disclosure in the eir who this is for and what sentiment of the population is going to be served and what income level and how many of the units how much are the financial

feasibility of the project assumes that people will not be bone fide first residents of this place they're not going to take a homeowners expectation if they have 2, 3, 4 residents or a visa they can't stay? united states more than a half of a year or they're going to turn around and sell them and use them as short time rentals. so that information needs to be provided by the developer in the eir it talks about how it is disclosed before the planning department approves the project thank you >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim collin on behalf of the coalition we've

not reviewed the most current version but will next week we've seen previous incarcerate nations of it one of the tragedies of sequa it compels us to look at cathedral hill making sense we believe this is an entirely perfect project and the eir correctly and inadequately identifies the relevant issues this doesn't cause significant environmental impacts not but the existing buildings. by what is especially disappointing sequa allows folks that lives as one of the most executive addresses to claim their aggrieved and opposed

because someone wants to build a high project we think this is questions of housing affordability we're not controvertible with one-on-one parking adjacent to the geary brt but as to environmental issues is there a better location than cathedral hill to put height where that amiably it's been there for years we think this is inadequately analyzed thank you. thank you. is there any additional public comment. okay seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner moore >> this is a difficult my microphone is not open. sorry this year that is a difficult project to comment on and i believe that the review of

this d eir is mounted with problems as witnessed many of the comments made don't apply under the revised rule of sequa. there's no consideration for issues and impacts on vulnerable populations and those impacts were difficult to verbalize before and impossible to verbalize now their unintended consequences which can't be analyzed anywhere that's maintaining the access to light and the heightened impact of wind including the pedestrian safety and run of the most addressed and repeated considerations here today. so the rules have changes and provisions under the sb have been revised and i will not

repeat and support the concerns that were made by expand a little bit on the oh, my gosh overarching social as well as aesthetic we're looking to our leaders to make decisions and consider how to reis shape this project >> the defendant eir follows a new line of thinking and didn't look at the aesthetics on the environment s-4 and s-42 but the eir and the d eir alongside this is in conflict with the general plan and points to the fact that the decision makers can consider the effects when deciding to approve the project. i believe that the comments i'll be making should be added and

forwarded to the board of supervisors including the addendum to the d e eir comments and suggest the formation as it addresses the aesthetic impacts be further stand. i'll suggest that the photo simulations should be done in color i ask driver's license be additional view angles so it shows you the isolations should show the effects and it's isolated locates from downtown. we're not trying to compose a skyline there's no skyline proposed the no building proposed an isolated at all building more remedy inept of

how we look into the future i'm not addressing the issue of indemnification the color needs to look at the i congress's from animal park we mostly see in color and south facing the octavia street would both be effected by the tower obliterating and the discretion of the tower interrupting the view i want to add the associate and economic. large escape development patterns and sxhangz to those patterns particularly in historic cities i'm putting american people thefls an cities sequa mostly addresses suburbia

changes often have unintended effects on all levels. i want to remind the commission on the santa fe stating and social and connective effects of the 1950 and 60 redevelopment in and around this project area. the proposed tower and this proposed location actually for medical mimic the patterns of the having and 60s pr then and now those isolated tower patterns looking from at all picket fences they didn't foster street life and contributed to the neighborhood. their injects completely failed on all levels we're left today with living with the lamented

effects of the previously entire community that's the fillmore and japantown. the facial situation and the disjointing from the 1950s and 60 of those neighbors although documented are lamented i believe that the post tower with the height will effect all attempts and current attempts to revitalize and receptionist the streetscape of the larger neighborhood including its effect on the fillmore and the sustainability trying to address in the commission. i urge that those comments will being passed on and claufbd and in decision making form a corner

stone that sequa did not help us in addressing the facts of this project. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> following up on what commissioner moore says it has a destating neck the 50s and 60 when geary was kaefrd out and is with us today and we have to as a city address that regardless of the project and because what we're looking at here is the delta change that will happen if this building is built and the changed in whatever form it takes we have to evaluate in the environmental impact report but we have to know what it is that

the change will create. i have a question i don't think is in the admiring but it doesn't make a difference and not necessarily an environmental issue but interested in knowing in the future whether when it the is a we see was banishment i was a dental student and thought it was a nice looking building and, you know, i don't know what it was going to be but anyway, it's an interesting thing and finally when we look at the environmental impacts we have to look at the viefrl effects whether one hundred percent affordable or a market rate building that's not an environmental issue who it is being sold to say not important

i've brought this up when projects get rail rooltd through without adequate environmental consideration or enough attendance paid to it because the impacts are the same to the neighbors no matter who's living near but i'll be interested in seeing the comments and responses and all you have i who have taken notes on all of this >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. i'd like to echo some of commissioner moore's comments it was actually having been chair of the one commissioner and being involved in the redevelopment project years before that i've heard will about the redevelopment in the 60s and the urban renewal split that community and the particular design shown here

reflects a little bit of that pattern of redevelopment and maybe some work can be done there but other than that comment i want to stick to the eir and in the eir itself it says that the commission and other approval bodies can consider affordability apart from the eir the only reap i will say it's kind of a reason for us to look at it now i look knowing how it works if you look at affordability beforehand and look at the change it is a thought potentially a comment to add to the board of supervisors again understanding that affordability is not an environmental impact is something we consider part of the environmental impact report or the sequa analysis ii didn't

see that the geary brt and other proposed changes that mta and the city has - have developed for the will developments that are included part of this plan that's problematic many of the comments say the number of roivents is going to raise car trips and the amount of car trips will impact the transit i believe this is one of the things it is the chicken and ego problem if you have more people you can investor more no one wants to get in their car and sit in traffic whether or not we can make improvements on the analysis of the real impacts will be based on the real plan that is the city has for improvements to mass transit and traffic in that area.

and pedestrian safety again, a thought there as well the same thing have more people on the street and the street improvements maybe something to be down u done with the driveways that automatically includes pedestrian safety without having to side something else i don't feel this is inadequately there. trying to go down the list recreation impacts part of the initial analysis were not included? draft eir. because there's a swimming pool in place of tense court we're california got a water shortage and chemicals that going basis with maintaining a pool even if 8 thousand gallons modest but

i'd like to see an addressing of that to show that swimming pool in place of the two tennis chiropractors is not an environmental impact. those are my comments thank you >> thank you. i wanted to comment on two areas the first is on pedestrian safety. there was a public k3478 around dpws collisions and fatalities i wonder if there's a need to sfooud study more intersections. and last also on the question of the fourth parts being shadowed maybe a paragraph on two of the areas but more attention towards the possibility not on shadows not every part of the park is

the same and spending time for the use of the park is helpful for understanding the impact of the actual shadow >> commissioner richards. >> this is my first meeting i'm going to rely on the comments and look at the massive document here two things recess natsd are the cumulative impacts with all the projects and traffic especially the medical center and ambulances where's the analysis when i add it up. secondly, i look to see the alternatives vs. the doing nothing and this project specifically, i hope and not looking at the right blas place the wind impacts i heard numbers but not seeing the analysis of the alternatives. i am worried about i know that

mr. collin mentioned the fabulous sdoipd but in i'm in a nursing home i'm not worried about the zip code but this is really going to have an impact i can't walk across a street with a 50 mile-per-hour windy can't imagine with a older man. i want to applaud the gentleman i really think he had a point on wants exception list. and i'm skrpd about the different kinds of shade. thank you >> commissioner moore. >> for my own edification i'd like to see a further implication been the wealthy and

height men and women categorized by age i'm a relatively small person i live in an area that is windy about his but there's a science when wind is not comfortable we need a matrix i would appreciative people add metrics into the eir. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much just two things quick i think we have two comments commissioner richards mentioned there are a listing of the summary and other parts someone mentioned there should be a separate piece and then the point of the shadow study. i didn't get the sent from the

description of the shadow impacts that were analyzed? study there would be a lot of impacts to the public realm or space we need to see the analysis and make sure that is it accurate maybe more of an issue with accuracy but i didn't get that sense >> commissioner richards. >> no, i'm sorry. >> commissioner moore. >> we're talking about shadowy want to see a couple of states that speak to the presence of light. the light and public how's health i'd like to is us address that there are clear evidence particularly when i look at europe standards and how they're not impacting light and houses this is an issue we don't have this codified but it maybe the same thing to open this

particular document >> thank you. >> commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll will move onto the next item we've considered item 9 now item 10. at 490 van ness avenue for conditional use authorization >> why don't we give them a minute. >> we'll give a moment for the room to