a motion to move this amendment forward seconded by supervisor yee madam clerk madam clerk, please call the roll. >> commissioner avalos supervisor breed no supervisor campos no supervisor christensen supervisor cowen no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar no supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee there are 6 i's and 5 notice with sxhooemd supervisor campos supervisor cowen and supervisor mar in the dissent the amendment passes on the pamphlet as amended. >> schoomz supervisor campos supervisor president london breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen

supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar no supervisor tang no. >> supervisor wiener supervisor yee there are 9 i's with two notices supervisor mar and supervisor tang in the dissent the item passes as amended on the first reading (clapping.) madam clerk go to our 2 o'clock accommodations starting with supervisor yee. >> thank you supervisor president london breed colleagues this pass sunday on november 15th our city took part in it's first raw day of remembrance for road traffic victims the world day is a

global action to honor those killed or injured we road collisions together with advocates and the families and friends i would recycle to honor this day at the board of supervisors this year really marks the 10 anniversary the adoption of the world day of remembrance by the general assembly in the 20th anniversary of the global remedies their common place we over look rookie those tragedies can i supervisor president london breed i mean supervisor president london breed can i wait a minute. >> oh, yes. >> members of the public can you please exits the chamber quietly 53 we still have business to 3 we still have buss

t to we still have business to the chamber quietly we still have business to conduct. >> thank you can you exit quietly thank you very much. >> and to members of the public if you're coming into the chamber please keep the noise level down commissioner vice president low has a very important accumulation to show some respect to the people that he's honoring much. >> thank you very much supervisor president london breed i also like to mention when i was there with several of my colleagues this past sunday it was really heartfelt to listen

to the stories of the people to talk about their relatives that passed or struggling to recover from their tragedies i mean, i'm fortunate i got banged you will by a car it took me of months to recover i feel like i'm recovered when i heard those other stories of people that had been seriously injured they're struggling avenue year and trying to remember the impact for families and their loved ones whether they did person device from the tragedy or gets seriously injured every year over one .3 million people are killed global warming this is u.s. bancorp acceptable they can be prevented by making streets survey and improving the driver

behalf and the increasing the government entities last year the board newsom adopted vision zero by educating the public open traffic safety and endorsing the laws and adopting policies that saves lives we hope that vision zero to put an end to all pedestrian deaths by the year 2024 but we have a long ways to go san francisco's has the highest percent in 201334 vehicle relate death in our street and last year that number was slightly reduced to 29 and overall thirty people are killed and injured in traffic incidents in the city i want to thank overseeing people in walk sf and others communities of the vision

zero for their tireless work to push those important issue though the forefront and want to acknowledge the survivors of crash victims that are dedicated to making our streets safer because you are out of and you're showcasing efforts we're moving color to meeting our vision zero goals and make sure that no other families will have to endure the loss of a loved one that so many hsa have faced in the city streets we want to ask our state representatives on the legislation there to step up they need to help us we cannot do it locally we need laws passed at the state level including allowing local jurisdictions to put up safety cameras including having regulations that regulate our

tougher bus more closely those are the similar things people can do and act on it now so is supervisor kim in the room? >> no okay. right now i'd like to ask monique up to say a few words monique survived a crash in 2013 since then she's been dedicated to go make our streets safer i'd like to also advocate the survivors and friends of those who have been victims of road traffic to receive this special accommodations i will be giving okay monique. >> hi first of all, thank you supervisor mar, supervisor kim and supervisor wiener for coming out only sunday memoriam for

traffic victims it was nice to see you guys it warmed any heart thank you. >> i just want to share my story two years ago i was crossing the street and hit by a driver going 40 miles per hour suffered a brain injury and had brain injury and been in rehab to train myself to walk again, i lost my research job at uc berkley and he no longer have the help going to graduate school every day i suffer from any memory and this process is slower and my attention is not the same my life has really changed the saddest part of all that i was preventable you know if it can happen to me it can happen to you or you're

showcasing family members do you think i want my mom or dad or brother are boyfriend walking the streets in san francisco you don't, no i don't feel it is a safe city to walk so i ask to please act quickly and push for ground zero or distortion and let's support the great organization like walk sf to reengineering over streets to educate and get more awareness around this issue of traffic safety and to enforce some of the laws to make sure that drivers are not driving recklessly again, if it can happen to me honestly it can happen to any one of us

thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you supervisor yee now i'd like to recognize supervisor mar. >> thank you supervisor president london breed colleagues we are honored in the chambers with a long time rent board and richmond board person acknowledge minimum for the reernts and landlords in the city the gentleman has a long history for service for the city

and county of san francisco in 1973 hired by the economic e oc for the head start program thank you for supporting the low income mr. wong was not limited to to the state bar a couple of years literary and 77 hiring by the mayor's office training as part find comprehensive came back ac to oversee programs in 83 hiring by the rent board where he's developed more friendships his contributions to the rent board were many including the capital improvement and the evictions units mr. wong was a residence of the richmond district for over thirty years and he's known in chinatown as quote the rent board and he brought with him a difference skill set with a

familiarity with the rent board laws and the ability to communicate with people regardless ever their background from others nabtsz as an attorney understanding the complex case while have the ability to explain the laws and chop it up fountain for the law person and because of his understanding the community and it's infinite patience with people he made measurable contributions to the landlord communities bringing a sense of fair practice to the workingings the rent board he's here with his partner and family members and rent board staff and colleagues let's give a hand a round of applause for the

gentleman for his service (clapping.) please come forward mr. wong (clapping.) please come forward mr. wong (clapping.) we'd like for you to say. >> few words if you can. >> well, thank you supervisors and the city and county of san francisco this was unaccepted and probably under deserved i really want to thank you city and county of san francisco for the privilege of work with the most excelled group of people i've ever met most talented and dedicated people i've ever met at the san francisco rent board and a number of members are here with

us today. >> thank you and thank you, supervisors, thank you san francisco, and keep safe thank you very much (clapping.) >> okay. colleagues now we will go to our 3:00 a.m.

special order madam clerk this will bring us to the first 3:00 p.m. special order and somewhat complicated we have before us appeals for the 5m project in district 6 there are 3 appeals related to the environmental impact report the conditional use authorization, and the office allocation we're going to hear all 3 appeals together apparently, there are piece of legislation potentially 30 years the project a general plan amendment the creation of a special use district and a development all the time that is a complex set of appeals to lemon quickly explain today is procedure i've received with the it don't make any difference and our clerk i'll get to that we'll hear the

3 appeals together and the board will have even though on the environmental impact report it takes of votes to either affirm or reverse the internal revenue if the eir is reegd not other approval action about took place and table the other items the eir is upheld we'll will vote on 3 pieces of authorizing legislation that may seem premature on the conditional use but we need 0 votes open is authorizing legislation first, because no cu or office allocations to appeal unless the board has adopted the ordinances creating the 5m special use district from the ordinances fail no need to vote on the cu or the office allocation in the ordinances pass we will vote on the cu appeal it requires 8 votes to overturn the planning

department decision there we'll vote on the office allocation appeals it only requires 6 votes to overturn the allocation here we go so madam clerk call items 15 through 25. >> item 15 through 18 comprise the person's interested in the planning commission for this environmental impact report dated september 17, 2015, for the property mixed use project on mission street and near parks as long as the 5m project item 16 the motion to affirm the certification of the eir prepared for the 5m project and 1-800 to reverse the commission certification item 18 a motion to direct the preparation of finding related to the reserveer

e.r. reversedal and comprise of hearing the certification of the conditional use authorization dated cement 17 additionally a related approval and allocation of office square feet for the mixed use project on mission street item 20 the motion to approve the commissions certification and approve the conditional use authorization for the 5m project item 21 the item is it reverse the commissions decisions approving the confusion and item 22 the motion indirectly the preparation of finding related to the reversal the conditional use authorization item 23 is the motion to approve the commission decision and approve the allocation of office square footage under the 2014-2015 annual limits program for two buildings known as the h1 and m site on mission street

team 24 the motion to reverse the commission decisions and approve the office square footage for the m and one m and the direction of the finding for the reversal the office allocation approval. >> before i call on supervisor kim for this hearing we will be considering whether to approve the planning commission certification of the environmental impact reports then the planning commission conditional use authorization and then the planning commission office allocation sore sun's we're combining the appeals i've worked with the city attorney's office to provide speakers with a bit more time so we'll take that without objection. we'll precede as follows: up to 15 manipulates for a presentation but is appellants or the appellant representative, up to 3 minutes per speaker in support of appeal, up to 15

mimics or minutes for a presentation from city departments, up to 15 minutes for the project sponsor or their representative, up to 3 minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal in support of project and finally up it 5 minutes for rebuttal by the appellants or the appellants representative so, please note if you're here to speak in for or against this project this will be the time to do it and not in general general public comment so with that, i want call on supervisor kim for opening statements before we begin. >> thank you supervisor president london breed i'll make brief remarks before the eir and conditional use authorization and the office allocation approval the 5m is a project for forest city and hearst

corporation in november of 2011 actually 4 years ago it has been quite a road to get to the final approval and i want to acknowledge this forest city has been engaged with our office and in the neighborhood throughout those 4 years as with any large project and in particular a special use the scope underlying envelope and changes should be fully vetted by the public i'm looking forward to a full discussion on the adequacy and completeness the eir and the appropriateness of the conditional use authorization office allocations approved by the commission in september and looking forward to hearing from the public on all audits on their thoughts and forbes e feedback this whether have a huge february in the heart of south of market i think a lot of good points and feedback have come through much has been included in the project,

however, this is the opportunities and point at which the members of the public should engage with the board on what they want to see and look forward to hearing and opinions by the appellants and members of the public okay. thank you supervisor we'll take that without objection. we will now open our hearing and begin up to 15 minutes by the appellants or the appellants representative. >> good afternoon madam president and supervisors my name is rachel with prudently and slot i'm the attorney that is representing the forest city sense group that files the appeal south of market action committee known as snack south of market action network came and s o s and friends the

balboa park as noticed the appeal is based on the outlooks submitted regarding the certification of the eir and is adaptation of finding in the state offering riding considerations the allocation of the square footage under the annual office approval and the conditional use. >> be closer to the mike please. i need my notes. >> okay. so we submitted substantive comments on each of those issues and we did that through our appeal packets on october 16th, november 6th, and 11 and those included the citizens of the exhibits a there h then yesterday's we submitted comments on the general plan amendment the development all the time and the special shade

limits on balboa park so regarding the eir accuracy i want to note that i'm not going to go on and on here i want for the board to hear the public's response to this and we want to note those are just highlights our comments were substantive and definitive and quits pursue scuff i'll directing your attention to those issues regarding the eir adequacy as the boards aware adaptation of all the prouflz are balances on the adequacy of the eir the adequacy of the eir has been challenged then the project can't be proposed so this is a type of law i do i

look at ceqa adequacy and projects and determine whether they have or qualified to make the accessories they do in the iritis my professional opinion this eir is defective that it is grossly defetch and any approval at risk until this requiring is amended and recirculated so the basic issue that comes to you with any eir is the project description accurate all of the rest of the analyses in the eir are bans this components or adequacy and description here as pointed out the proponent proposed two different schemes or scenarios

and unfortunately, the eir did not analysis the various schemes in a like manner so the adequacy of the analyzed impacts is defective you don't have the basis for comparison to a specific project so adrc complications to this the final eir proposed a different project different from those two scenarios and entirely different project so the eir analysis he's didn't consider this project in depth we say no problem with the eir whether you have a project description it is confusing that is impossible for the public to adequate will i

championing on the project for objective reasons they don't know what project their commenting on and expanding can't analysis the report because they looked 3 different schemes not a single project that is in definite violation to the threshold issue for second compliance so even if the eir was without any other defect this key fact will render the entire eir inadequate so therefore we request that the board reject the certification and require the eir and send that back to the mramg planning with one description that analyses each the implicates and the alternatives are compared to

here since there was two different scenarios a different project in the final one was a narrow analysis they were not compared to a single project so then i want to highlight some that is the biggest issue for the board of supervisors it precedes every other questions that preceded today is that document adequate, did it provide notice of what the project proposes, did the analysis a specific project and if not then we suggest that it is not appropriate foreign the project approval so just to highlight some of the other issues with the eir for example, the eir is handing the traffic impact the eir artificially reduced the

study so the steady area had impacts so certain intersections had bulge impacts and within adjacent impacts that one would might have impacts to jabts to the impacts in their not reviewed so the impacts study was two small and the internal revenue adequacy it bans all the foreseeable impacts that is foreseeable to have an impact an impacted intersection would be adjacent to another impacted intersection that was not studied in consideration of the adequacy of the open space and regarding the shade project the project proposes shading with

itself own open space since it was the project that was very similar to the preservation alternative that was proposed as the project that alternative was initially rejected because of the proposed wind impacts it is the interior spaces of that project proposing proposal has some of the highest wind effects of any place in the project that is where the open space is proposed since the wind studies were can you think on the other project proposals and not in depth we feel the wind studies are i think adequate it shows the open space is windy and shady this does accurately show a space for

this size the open space advisory committee passed a resolution asking the board to extend the project so that more studies to be done on this issue and as i say in the records there's a lot of evidence regarding everyone or each and every part of the open space for this project shade and shadow impacts are large and the friends of the balboa park virtually wrote a letter and submitted it yesterday on this issue and we believe that the impacts for balboa park not sufficiently analyzed and the eir should have anytime the impacts prior to raising the threshold to balboa park the planning commissioner cindy one way or another said a few cases it was expand in all

of the cases the project proposed far more affordable housing than this project does, in fact, in order to raise the limit the projects that were approved some of them were 100 percent avenue so the recreations should be high and there should be strong reasons to change that protection for the parks for san francisco especially there's a special natural resource within is urban environment they should be valued critically and the other interesting thing about that so we're looking at adopt a statement of the consideration when a project has remaining impacts then the city may look at the benefits of the project and is those are over ridden and we adopt the project anyway but the one thing that is forgotten

that it is never adopted until the project has been adequately analyzed and until all litigations and alternatives have been considered so coordinators an agent ant can't from impacts to override the first month adequately analyzing the impacts and looking at the mitigation and alternatives here it is during the testimony at planning commission hearing that the buildings could be easily rearranged to avoid shadows on balboa park so that's the situation where lots of people care about that and there should have been an alternative considered that avoided the impacts we didn't have to look at raising the limits of balboa park so then the other issue was was

this project adequately acted for cumulative impacts and unfortunately, the eir used an outdated study in 2012 that was done during the recession and prior to the growth that this area hsa has seen as to the analysis cumulative impacts it i think adequate it was based on an old study another area a lot has been written in inconsistency with the area plan the project it is inconsistent with any codes and policies and lists each one and why it is inconsistent but what the internal revenue did wrong with this argument is the eir navld the consistency with the

proposed general plan amendments in place will that's not how it works you look at the project under the applicable codes and consider what impact amend that project will have here the eir does the reverse it considered the project under the amendments it was consistent this is constitutes no analysis whatsoever and then one the last assertions is that the project constitutes spot zoning so our assertion this project has been artificially separated from the planning provision of the eastern neighborhoods the central selma plan, and instead of rezone as a do you only i downtown special development is supporting zoning

so this project amends the height and unbelievable limits if the downtown zone those amendments are more appropriate they're similar in scale it the financial development north of market and transbay to the east so in terms of the zoning applications are not in the way it looks at the consistency of the area plan and this prohibited spot zoning it is hidden with the analysis of eir so it is should be done more adequately so it could be more apparent my time is about up and that's all i have to say and i do urge you to look at the substance comments that have

been a lot of time by people that care about south of market and you're not against this project per say but feel that it really should be amended to respect areas surrounding area policies and that this project can be maids to be more appropriate as a step down - step up project within south of market. >> so thank you very much at the appreciate your time. >> thank you, supervisor kim you have questions. >> i do have a question for the appellant. >> on what you considered the underlying arguments or the most more argument in the appeal in terms of instead of instead of the project makers must looking at look at 3 areas for the

reich's description and the internal revenue stage meant the public was excluded if commenting just to speak on this point what are the more substantive oversights in the project description and the alternates from the current project as finally negotiated you felt. >> the services analysis. >> well it is good to make the statement nothing you thought the oversight was in the study. >> well, i disagree i believe that we mentioned all of those points and just the fact they were 3 different project descriptions you don't have to go further that - >> if that's okay most of large projects before the board there are multiple project descriptions and alternatives

and the final be negotiated project that comes before the board tends to be a mixture of the multiple projects it continuing comes up in large projects never the project is the same when it comes to the final boards how is this different from any large project and the major substantive oversight that has not been analyzed in this study you feel that we should looked at in order to reopen the eir. >> i reviewed the projects myself and what i see happening is you're right that projects evolves and change and anymore utilization is proposed, etc. but you have kind of a confluence ever problems the project was not fully identified not a single project to gentile with that's the initial problem itself dangerous there are

several projects proposed not true under second a definite stable you have to start out that way and the other thing when i see projects amended that's after the project environmental review has been completely for this project in terms of a full discussion of impacts of a sage project you have all of the alternatives compared to that single project and then you're fully at easy to look at the amendment and mitigation and adopts them not within the financial eir you presented with a new project and if those happen then the mere analysis needs to happen. >> can you - and could you explain substancely what is anything's that is in the project as negotiated specifically what analysis is

missing (multiple voices). >> they're not subject to the life analysis one scenario compared to one report and other within. >> instead of being general list the specific and i don't have - this is a big project we submitted probably oh, i'm - >> i'm sure (multiple voices). >> and because i want to understand you're showcasing argument. >> i understand the basic premise not has nothing to do with with detail by the application of how this project was handled to i'm not going to go into details when we are talking about big picture the big picture this project was not handled in a correct issue across the board to ceqa. >> can you name a large

project in san francisco that met the standard here today. >> sure most projects do adhere to - the project that meets our standard that you've list here today. >> another project the board do is looking at. >> over the last 10 or 5 years that meets the standard today. >> what people contact me there's a problem i don't review projects that don't have problems my clients are public interest clients when at the receive a problem they come to me. >> so. >> it's fine if you make the agreement the eir analysis is nostril complete because you need one specific description

comparison to several project alternatives that are analyzed in the eir that you should be able to describe large projects in san francisco that meet the standard here today. >> the eir is not based on higher recognize so i'll ask that the boards look at the substance of those letters and not do an my recollection. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you now we will have up to 3 minutes for any speaker who supports the appeal so if anyone is in support of actually appeal for any of the items before us today please line up and come forward 3 minutes each. >> and this is on this for

those members of the public who want to speak in support of the appeal can you please come forward quibble we have a long agenda first speaker please. >> the only objection to this 5 m project is affordable housing section of the overview complex you advertise that you have affordable housing and then you've got $310 million housing bond that specific explains how the bonds as opposed to be use for low income and memory protect breaths of people but yet when you look at the requirements to move into the building the lowest rate to move into the complex is that $1,000

a year okay. the in relation set up to 85 thousand and the top is one and 50 percent and 40 percent a one hundred $7,000 a year those numbers are not related to people that are in lower and memory income brackets that's the only thing i object to i have the same type of problems with other issues we're talking about today, too pertaining to affordable housing and my public comment i'll addresses 3 areas where the boards we're talking about commercials and affordable housing, and the reason why minorities are on the receiving ends the discretionary areas are dropping down so other than that i'm fine with building apartment thirty percent affordable

housing should be split between the maximums point of about 48 thousand a year for instructors and school teachers and the on the 20 percent balance should be for low income people who are in low income bracket thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. and just for clarity this it is for mbes that basically are opposed to this project. >> and support the appeal. >> thank you my name is jane kim wild thank you you thank you for having me. i live on mission street on 7th street a couple of blocks i've been involved with mid market on many organizations and to start 19 with john king the critical 5 m this as real estate deal with

large this is from a writer this from the chronicle that owns the property no question that 5 m is only about profits for the developer there notice justification for tripling the allowable height or at building separation across the street and not requiring the affordable housing to say be built on seethe the only justification for profit for the developer city law allows the zero tolerance foreshadow an parks and nobody defended the yerba buena gardens shaded starting at 320 up to a 29 increase 2, 3, 4 shadowing this is own bet the city not the rec and park nobody talks about the incredible damage to yerba linda island this is not acceptable and wind

or we're outreaching opposing we have a proposal that comes fell off you many benefits we ask you to consider it 5 m was not all about how's as people building and 5 m is not building 40 percent low income it is building no lower-income housing and the feasibility study to the city and doing member of the public nothing to build senior how's and created for 83 units the city has to come up with the thirty plus million dollars they center no obligation and can sell that property and 5 m is given credit for quote building 71 units of low income housing in the tenderloin they're required to pay gap funding to a project that is short funded and has been for 10 years the reality is 5 m is about 14

permeation oust moving in the right direction housing 86 that goes from one hundred to one 50 ami no low income housing on this site to break every law to the promise of affordable housing is just wrong it is too in why you don't think king quote the end result is a dynamic project rather than a real estate there's no denying the option on the ground and air of thick high-rise. >> thank you very much ma'am, i'm sorry we have a long list of people we need to move to the next speaker i'm sorry. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jackie and as you heard from the previous speakers this project violates the codes and zoning

regulations and a proper analysis of winds and shadow impacts the eir fails to adequately analysis the impacts of high traffic pedestrian safety, open space, shadow and shade effects and is in violation of general plan despite what the vice president of forest city says there has been no collaboration effort and it doesn't have the support from affordable housing and arts groups i'm here to challenge the certification of the eir to developers successful efforts to alternate the zoning spot stone and codes have resulted in illegal exception to this district the description of the project is in inadequate you've heard before and it is i think complete which makes it misleading this development b will lead to another round of displacement

ellis act evictions, tenant buy outs and intimidations the rent-controlled unit tenants and 50 it is criminal of the city to advance this project you built luxury condos and office towers in a working-class neighborhood without consequence to exist residents you're showcasing giving us uaw hundreds of millions of giving to forest city and hearst corporation a mind blogging value to the land they'll make is on to have money this is what it is all about you want money here's money (clapping.) >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> hello my name is elizabeth he will i understand a lot of this you're not just putting a big building that are expensive you're showcasing throwing

hundreds of people out on the streets i've been given an eviction notice this next year i'll get another one and he didn't want to speak to me i can't take to talk to the landlords those are the kind of people that are building those buildings and picture yourselves on the street and the sheriff drawing you out and trying to said what is like to be evicted and at least people will be thrown out we should be shamed of ourselves the filipinos fought with america and so other people don't do this don't approve this it is bad news and you're going to hurt hundreds and hundreds of people living and sleep on >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> (clapping.) >> hello i'm sorry betty trainer i'm here representing

friends of bodecker park the coordinator it is over 10 years olds and vaccinecy for the park the closed park and now this new park, of course, i'm here to say we are opposed to the project because of the shadowing of the park i'm surprised to say that the recreation and parks department commission considered this shadowing insignificant well it is not insight to us who use the park the area where the shading show a shade is the community garden we have vegetable and plan for an orchestra yard in the string or spring is it so significant to the people that use bodecker park we're not given any, no, sir, that this was potential shadowing was going to happen we asked do staff members at the park did you see any, no, sir, you could

pickup you been pubically for the yours astonish aware of this the neighbors so said no, this is another over or issue interest was not proper 90s so people could come to the prior meetings and hear them i'll conclude by saying that at our this is really a privilege or principle at our meeting on september 9th we reached the contentious on bodecker park the city law should be followed members expressions concern that making an exception for the 5m project shadowing of bodecker park excess a precedence to shadow others parks by laws to come this is this project the tower that is shadowing the park 45 stories is in the south of market this is the mission and shadowing a park that is in the

tenderloin at ellis near taylor having a tower that big would at least meet our objection friends of bodecker park i want to leave that message was as an advocate for the park opposite this project in its proposed condition. >> thank you very much. >> madam president i'll remind the members in the public gallery did other sideable expression is not allowed. >> i'm with the civic the panthers we have a good bye party for the beloved former necessary letter she's been

forced out of the city can't afford the rents this affects us personally we appreciate the fact that there is below-market-rate housing adams and no development agreement can reduce the impact for the surrounding areas and no environmental impact report can take into account the fact that of the surrounding areas the housing project didn't begin to cover the number of employees that will be added to the workplace so the huge spill over the employees from the project into the surrounding areas this is a has to be part of the impact more over the airt has to take into account how much putting. >> luxury financial district kind of construction into a

working-class neighborhood will jack-up the rents in the surrounding area once again, we appreciate the baufrts but if sweeney those deals with balanced needed housing can overcome the current laws about shadowing about zoning, about special districts for children and filipinos what's the points of us trying to pass any kind of abusing laws if all of those laws are up for negotiation for some rich development by offering a bit of affordable housing and how is the environmental impact report that you have taking that into account. >> and how can the environmental impact report take into account the racism and classes in ibm equalities built

into those projects. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> game-changer my name is sal a resident of selma on mission street i'd like to start off by talking about the the revised eir the one that was approved by the planning commission many of us and many not here made critical comments of plan promoted in the original proposal and yet the eir reviewing these plans rules of evidence the comments from the public i'm sorry the public's comments the eir was both dismissive and arrest arrogance about the citizens in the neighborhood dbes there might be traffic problems occurring so was there are a lot of traffic problems and displacement happens all

over the city those are the issues that were dealt with in the eir and totally out of line what with what the public was concerned about this project is essentially a wounds on the face of selma so out of scale by bulk and height and by bring in so many people to a quiet quiet neighborhood the city planner talks about the transition from high buildings to low buildings but yet the buildings proposed are higher than anything to the east until you get to the financial district and the transbay terminal the developers themselves also were blowing smoke by saying we have this lovely park and the pictures they show are green space and people playing in sunshine the people will be

there other on a and in school and no green grass nonetheless you painted it green one the perfect members said this was a quiet neighborhood up until now there are plenty of people that walk in the israel that live in sros who work in the nonprofits, who live in retirement homes in the neighborhood mena street you know you walk down it people sitting often the street sometimes with needles sometimes without better to be safe than sorry but the fact those streets become thoroughfares as a result of all the people coming out the neighborhoods there is will we talk about the city's vision zero vision zero is going to be challenged by the way, by this project tremendously not only on 5 dr. street b