attorney so the first amendment is not an amendment for legislation only a change to the extremity agreement at the end of the hearing we'll provide the clerk with an agreement what all the changes reflected in that the second item in the document that supervisor yee handed out the 5 m sud amendment is actually on amendment to the ordinance on item 27 reflecting the same content. >> okay. thank you for clarification madam clerk, please call the roll. >> commissioner avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee

there are 11 i's. >> okay. the amendment passes unanimously supervisor kim. >> thank you i had alluded to 4 other amendments in any earlier comments just to restate them for the public and my colleagues the first amendment is to increase from three hundred thousand to 8 hundred thousand the amount for the filipino culture heritage district if you did through the soma stabilization fund for consultation and other studies and also implementing the filipino culture district and make sure it went through the stabilization fund so the cac that represents the central soma have a say in terms of how the funds are spent the second amendment is the change the 1 pointed $5 million of open space and specifically is specifically

directed for the jean recreation center and the park on top of the change to put the 1.5 in nonprofit capital fund and redirect it if the overall mayor's office to the south of market stabilization fund so the committee can see how the funds will be spent 24 change the 1 housing unit 5 founds from the mayor's office of economic workforce development to the cac and brought in the categories with the soma stabilization fund economic advancement for families and individuals responding to the criticism that some of the workforce money is too high a level for the residents that we have in the south of market. >> supervisor kim can we slow down can we go back to the

transfer of the fund from the office of economic workforce development to the cac can you provide an explanation of that, please. >> what do you mean by an explanation. >> trying to understand why it was transferred to the cac rather. >> the cac. >> sorry. >> for for workforce this is based information from our office since those workforce fund were targeted to the south of market will residents it would be better that the people familiar with the organizations will have a say in terms of how the funds are spent down it allows the citizen's advisory council to get impact and feedback rather than to the

microorganisms the lower income folks to be less skilled to have this prop m you're on number 4. >> yes. the fourth amendment moving one million dollars to the yerba buena gardens anticipate the project sponsor from m-1 to mitigate for the shadows at yerba buena play circle an important place to play while this garden is not protected many advocates figure out to you insure a mitigation of the shadows on this site and setting a standard for non-rec and park spaces where they have shadow impact and the finally

amendment? from the community that there is an early delivery of mary court west at the ground floor level to be guaranteed prior or prior to the construction of first building this park will be a benefit to the entire neighborhood it will asset this be phased in an earlier part of the project verse the latter so the open space can be enjoyed prior to the construction by the time certificate of preference to the paperwork and the hours will be open twenty-four hours. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to amend item 28 a second by supervisor yee colleagues without objection without objection those passes unanimously okay seeing no other names on the roster

i will i'd like to entertain a motion on 26, 27 and 28. >> so i'll make to move to move forward items 26, 27 and 28. >> do i need to make a motion actually don't we it can role individually and make a motion on the office allocation on this roll call. >> as amended. >> madam clerk roll call. >> commissioner avalos no supervisor breed supervisor campos no supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar no

supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee there are 8 i's and 3 with no commissioner avalos supervisor campos and a supervisor mar in opposition and the authorized legislations we will consider the conditional use appeals items 20, 21 and 22 are the conditional use authorization involved analysis of whether the planning commission determination to authorize the project was appropriate this hearing is quasi-judicial so to overturn the planning commission or authorization the conditional use with 8 votes of board are required so do we have a motion for items 20, 21 and 22 supervisor kim. >> thank you. i'm make a

motion to moved on 20 and . >> seconded by supervisor tang madam clerk seeing no names on the roster. >> commissioner avalos no supervisor breed supervisor campos no supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee there are 8 i's and 3 meows with supervisor campos commissioner avalos and supervisor mar in december sent we're affirming the planning commission relating to the conditional use. >> and last but not least colleagues the conditional use authorization are firmed we will

now consider the office allocation items 23, 24 and 25 a conversion appropriateness of the allocation to reject or affirm requires 6 votes of board of supervisors so supervisor kim. >> make a motion to move forward items 23 and table 24 and 25 your supervisor kim has made a motion seconded by supervisor yee madam clerk call roll. >> commissioner avalos no supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee

there are 89 i's with supervisor campos commissioner avalos and supervisor mar in the december sent. >> the office logos are affirmed. >> (chanting). >> a 5 minute recess everybody. >> good evening - >> yes. >> good evening, everyone and welcome back to the late night addition of the board of supervisors we are now approaching our second 3:00 p.m. special order this is exactly why they pay us the big bucks it is nearly 11:00 o'clock we're conducting

business madam clerk. >> can we go to the next 3:00 p.m. special orders. >> yes items 29 through 32 is a public hearing for persons interested in the certification of a environmental impact report or eir dated september 3rd for the proposed demolition of existing 8 level parking garage with a over basement approximately 200 and 20 foot tall building with 33 dwelling units with 5 thousand plus ground floor retail space on howard street and item the thirty for the certification the eir prepared for the 75 howard and item 31 motion to reverse the certification of the f eir and 32 to direct the finding relate to restoring the

commissions set of facts certification of the f eir. >> this the the final environmental impact report on 75 howard in district 6 thank you, supervisor kim our consideration involves the adequacy and accuracy and the sufficiency and completeness the environmental impact report without objection we will precede as follows: up to 10 minutes for the appellant to describe the grounds of their appeal up 2 minutes for the public examiners no support and 10 minutes for the representing of the planning department staff to present it's analysis for civil rights the eir and up to 10 minutes for the parties in interest to present their case for certification of the eir and up to 2 minutes for public commenters to speak in support in support of affirming the environmental impact report

and finally the appellant has up to 3 minutes for a rebuttal at this time supervisor kim any opening remarks. >> i donna do supervisor president london breed thank you for that 75 howard is another waft in the transit center district the parking structure i'm sure many of you have parked ♪ the c-3 special district at 200 height and bulk district the project sponsor paramount demolishes the parking garage with a 20 story 200 plus ground square feet and one and 33 residential building with 5 thousand plus square feet of ground floor retail space and

off-street parking spaces this will this was initially filed in january of 2012 and initially with a different project proposal was substantially amended in august of last year to build a smaller largely as of right 26 accomplice at all square feet building there are multi concerns that have been shared by the office and the briefly i look forward to hearing the concerns and feedback the members of the public and also hearing from the project sponsor on the certification of environmental review thank you >> thank you, supervisor kim at this time the appellant or the appellants represent will have up to 10 minutes please come forward. >> hello supervisors david

osgood from rincon point long day we just point out we were fine with continuing this meeting the developer was not so that's, we're here don't blame us the good news we're not going to have many speakers especially this kind of night but keep in mind that this is an area one of those areas in san francisco that people all over town care of about actually people all over the region and all over the state they're watching what we do tonight this area needed to be planned wisely outside the scope opposition to this and the concern about the eir from renters, businesses like condo owners and property

owners throughout the area we submitted our petitions to you signed by over three hundred and 50 neighbors concerned community groups proposed to the project including save rincon park the coalition informative san francisco neighborhood, the alliance for a better district 6 and central city at harvey milk lgbtq club and san francisco tomorrow and the affordable housing alliance not only is the eir deficient but planning know of it's deficiency before planning moved to vote and rincon submitted a letter pointing out the eir was deficient in many of the ways we listed in our appeal they appointment the project didn't conform to the downtown area plan and didn't setback or step

down it makes it inconsistent with the surrounding properties and the traffic analysis was not done properly among other shortcomings we also appoint the eir is deficient when analyzing shadows and shorter alternatives actually 43 they especially\novels one shorter alternative they said it a shorter building would have been a alternated historic preservation are concerned you've received our brief written by a major california law firm the eir needs to be sent back and recalculated it didn't comply with ceqa talk about

affordable housing let's be clear that is noted a class more affordable housing even though the developer agreed today to contribute $6 million more info offsite housing this serves to widen the gaps between the vaets this is a classic example of providing the for the other extreme at the end of the spectrum nothing in between and keep in mind crossing the published numbers this developer can raging rake in half a billion dollars do the math published estimated indicate those luxurious condo unit subtle for one thousand to 2 thousand a square feet on the waterfront probably going to have the higher demand has 200

and 80 thousand square feet that's about $500 million gross and it is gross and for that $6 million extra donation that's a drop in the bucket. >> talk about traffic we know traffic congestion is gotten worse in recent years it is so bad did south beach democrat club called a meeting tenant and supervisor wiener and an aide to supervisor kim and improper traffic analysis was ultimately killing washington and made mistakes planning comes across as desperate green in trying to use stale data for the traffic analysis and planning trooiz tries to stay they don't have to

update the data because traffic has not changed puncture that is hiss material not only has traffic not increased their claiming in their response written four days ago that is it actually gone down 26 point accomplice including the embarcadero really? supervisor if you had this information when you went to the south beach democrat club thank you have told them traffic is not real it has gone down 26 percent obviously traffic has increased significantly and their i read or required to use fresh data the eir is sufficient and in other ways as well now they even tried to explain

why traffic went down 26 percent maybe a bit of skeptical tim frye they tried to explain that was planning that the mandated right turns have gone do you thing this is humor this is ridiculous the heavy traffic in soma doesn't come from van ness and market but the financial district during the times of day and those cars have in restrictions where we go through the soma. >> let's see shadows and shorter amendments when it comes to shadows let's be clear both the eir and turn stones recently

updated study no uncertain terms this casts significant shadows on the heart of rincon park the developers animation i'll put it on the screen this is what they showed the planning department and i don't know if they'll show it here tonight but if at the do please make them stop it where this still is looking here this is howard is includes all believes that have been improved and not built like the salesforce transbay tower there is a significant shadow from 75 howard alone the turn stones updated august 2015 report states quote the proposed project will cast net new shadows on most days throughout the year

and therefore resulting in significant and unavoidable shadowing on rincon park touchstone and the developers animation includes the shadow from building that reason built planning tries to use a number to quantify how much shadow impact and i haven't found anyone who understands those numbers the one thing for sure the number while sounding small is twice the shadow impact on the property development next to the victor park that development had a shadow impact number hsa half as big from the recreation and parks department rejected that project last january let me quote the eir on shadow quote any development with subsequent height approximately,

one hundred will shadow rincon park thus, in feasible mitigation to reduce it's impact to a lens significant level draft eir page 24 the eir is deficient it didn't analysis a shorter building of manmade a point that a shorter this what mitigate the building they only have a reasonable number of alternatives we believe this should include one shorter alternative do you this they've certainly had time to do a complete study thank you very much. >> thank you are 33 there any members of the public that time to comment in support of appeal at this time please step

forward. >> commissioners my name is alyssa i appreciate your being here late this evening for an important project i live on rincon hill and the involved in the neighborhood association when it comes to amend this has to do with the developers responsibility please keep in mind the development team stated in the press and community meeting they get a healthy income from the business one of the key members called the garage a gold mine it is worst remember remembering the reality e real estate industry built open to site they could have built housing it is newcomers and commercial believes that were built next to the freeway

and paramount knew their due diligence that city requirements call for a low building the developer needs to take responsible for their own decisions our briefs specifically raise the issue potential flood damage to excitement equipment on the lower level and laushgs cars in the garage are go the first floor damage would be significant flooding is a potential problem yet nothing about this responded on page 11 they specific say damage will be caused mask the eir is silent on the millions of dollars of damage to cars and mechanic equipment and calls the issue less than significant you have a choice noting vote

with the folks of san francisco enough is enough - >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i work out at the ymca there at near spear and howard and infrequent traveling by this site there is only about one feet between this project location and the embarcadero what you considered important regarding 8 washington what is there a triangle of urban used land only used for construction so, please there - this is sierra club on the embarcadero the list of problems associated with that as long as you're arm according to the legal briefs by the california law firm the eir is deficient it analyzing traffic and hazardous materials

and acre lovely and historic restoration a study has not been done it mitigates the shadow on rincon park the developer is offering to contribute $6 million to the inclusionary affordable housing program despite making hundreds of million dollars on the project shadow impacts on rincon park is upcoming yield on many days of year kroorz to the turn stone report no affordable housing on the neighborhood something you have talked about being important when you talked about having a neighborhood preference more affordable housing. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning.

>> not yet. >> (laughter) my name is - 70 for san francisco neighborhood several things about that project that is an opening problem that will continue and at some point we have to say stop we need housing for people that live here there is the number of problems include no affordable housing on site in the neighborhood the projects is not code compliant has exceptions and variances are being sought for extra height and bulk 20 percent over the 200 height limit specific criteria allowing extra height are being abused it violates urban design guidelines calling for more buildings on the waterfront and vitals the building taxpayer down as called

by the urban design downtown area plan and the transbay district plan guidelines are violated the call for tops the project lacks significant setbacks and this violates the neighborhood pattern impact on traffic significant and unavoidable for the eir architecture are cop their stripped boxes design with allocate nearby project. >> good news the warriors one tonight bad news the public might lose tonight i hope you turn this project down thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> tom i'm getting used to we don't need have to have a environmental impact report it seems like everything needs an

environmental impact report where the city is the overhead please this is not the project this this is 7th street between mission and 6th street and we kind of like what we are doing here this is post communist meow liable design that wants to live in our city so projects developers can make a whole lot of money and you get no space and south of market in the eastern neighborhoods and downtown we have very little park i don't want to hear anyone put a building in planning that will throw shadows on a park not

across from market street a park in the high dense area is not on the ground but in the sky a parking lot is an aerial parking lot you'll see space this is new and you won't be able to see what is on the overhead very soon they're building out huge building and again not displacing people but including people from the neighborhood we need to reduce profits we need to increase humanity and introduce our neighbors to our planning and development and thirty percent is open market whether a condominium or it is a rental building thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good evening supervisors i'm reed i'm a long time residents of the area in which

this project is located moving in hills plaza block away i submit materials that was part of eir process as did my building with the help of other people that live in the building, however, the project that we commented on not the project that is before you at this point this project has changed dramatically from its original presentation to the planning department it started at three hundred and 50 feet plus then went down to two hundred and 90 now down to two hundred and 40 feet yet this isn't the height that was oefrnl and initially studied by the eir further the two main concerns that were raised are shadows and traffic the shadows as part of draft eir there was not a study that was later submitted

with the traffic the same thing on very relevance a new traffic study submitted the public has not had an opportunity to consider the project that is being proposed indeed when it was first proposed and the draft eir was present it was stated that what we are now calling the code compliant alternative was not economically feasible yet that's the project they're asking for approval that was not the project that did public had the opportunity to comment on nor is it the project that you've had the fill opportunity to consider the material and supporting documentation so i urge you to reject the eir and send it back to for on updated eir that presents this project - >> thank you very much.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> sue hester as reed said the project is not the same as that which was in the eir and it is frustrating people sent a lot of time commenting on a project the city said is infeasible they keep on amending the information up this is the only high-rise building on the waterfront there is no more sites there are no more sites this is it so it deserves really serious condition you should spent sometime planning department had their hearing not same thing an hour earlier we'll have late night hearings twice on this

project that deserves people thinking throw things one thing that bother me, you pay the same numb u autumn in the a formula for a unit that sells for $10 million as for hundred thousand dollars the project is shifted it shifted today it needs to be explained fully in the eir and needs to be an opportunity for the public to understand what is going on there is nothing that will have as obstructed waterfront as this site the odds of the embarcadero has this is perpetuate cash machine for the developers you need to step back and is would i want to have any vote on the plaque on the building he

voted for this project i wouldn't so i'm asking you to continue this and get more inspiration thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members of the public who want to speak in support of appeal seeing none, public comment is closed represent from the planning department you're presentation please. good evening supervisors i'm dan planning department joining me is sarah jones any review office and senior environmental planner and transportation planner this is the planning commission certification of the eir it is important to noted we're not - we're here to speak about the adequacy of the project we sent you two appeal letters sent by the appellant the concerns in

the appellants october 5th and november 6th letters is similar to comments address in the internal revenue i will summarize tonight those issues are fully addressed and analyzed in the eir and the appellant doesn't provide any substantial evidence to the contrary i speak to the appeal the proposed project analyzed in the dprir was for three hundred and 48 at all towers that require a health reclassification over the draft eir the project sponsor provided a 200 plus tower that complies it the eir is the alternative the environmental alternative as has the least impact the responses to the alternative to

increase that alternatives tower height by 20 feet and it is now the preferred project that was analyzed in the eir i will touch on the main points of appeal starting with shadows the project shadows have analyzed in eir the draft eir found the original proposed project at three hundred plus is causing shadow on the park many park users in the afternoon found the shadow to be substantial and adversely effects the enjoyment of the park the substantial shadow impacts were appropriately considered the clvmentd was the approved project creates 35 percent less shadows we thought the code

compliant shadows will have a significant shadowing impact an alternative to reduce the impact for less than significant any building turn around the 90 foot parking garage has a shadow on retaining i rincon park in the afternoon a study that include more shadows on rincon park and the little that are under construction for the baseline conditions were established to the eir this new 2015 study completed that he request of the project sponsors provide a snapshot of current conditions and make use of project there are more shadows from the exit and less new result shadows on rincon

park this does alter the conclusions there is a significant shadow and the eir relies on the shadows accurately and the alternatives the study is consistent and shows less shadow the eir needs to be recalibrated the study was not included in the eir that's not correct and moving to the alternative that the appellant argues the eir should have considered provides two alternatives in the alternative at 280 and 220 feet the number of alternatives analyzed in the eir is adequate and compliance with sentencing e california environmental quality act only requires a range to the rule of reason that requires the eir so forth only those no iron clad

ruling requiring the alternatives to be discussed in the eir the purchase to focus on the reducing e.r. eliminating a sixth effect of project the eir doesn't need to consider all alternatives but must consider a range of feasible alternatives in placing a 90 foot parking garage with a one foot tall structure is not feasible on the project site and in november 6th letter to the board that is attached to the supplemental the project sponsor says the loss of income and the construction associated with the one foot building is not feasible moving on to travel the eir didn't found any significant transportation impacts the traffic analyze use the 3 counts

in the letter for a 16-month-old stood out and 22 masonic the based on were established this is consistent with the san francisco planning department transportation impact guidelines which states that the account collected in the previous two years can go used for traffic patterns to be stable you see here the appellant claims those accounts are stale not providing demonstration felt intersection conditions that substantially change the baseline conditions were established the appellant refers to the 8 washington case the howard project is distinguishable and the publication that establishes the baseline conditions was published in december of 2012 and the building from february 2011 and june 2012 both within with the two year

guidelines it is consistent with our fwlz and taken on to farmer's market day the proper question whether the traffic data in the eir reflect the current conditions the time the eir was prepared they say yes. the unsubstantiated climates in the eir implicit one can't be used and recounted due to temporary conditions those comparisons are attached the overall traffic volumes were found to be lower in the eir and the traffic analysis with the eir was more conservative and therefore the traffic analyze and conclusions remain valid and to support the garage will stay in the area we didn't net it out the transportation analysis is

for conservative again, the appellant states it is not not true and his material showing the intersections in the area have now what we report in eir no new issues were raised that have's not been address and in conclusion the eir sufficiently is adequate and accurate address objective staff remembering asks the uranium accurate and we're here to answer questions. >> supervisor kim. >> this issue was in the last eir and appeal as the question on planning policy regarding when an update is required you mentioned that the traffic analysis for the eir was conducted on february 2011 and

june 2012 and the final eir according to the documents douptsdz 3 years later in 2015 is there a policy when an update required. >> for those types of analysis. >> we - >> sue michaelson planning department staff supervisor president london breed consistent with the guidelines we have a general policy we look at traffic accounted more 2 years old not a set per say older accounts or using on older accounted we'll choose to use the analysis whether the updated accounts within variance that says those can be used we have on the projects the 5 m the project before us is the

difference between the traffic updates and the certification can range up to 4 three or four years on many projects the 5m and the cpmc. >> can you - is that allowable within ceqa has someone considered that in the advisory committee of tremendous youth here in san francisco so two or three years you know maybe 20 years ago that maybe a stretch maybe not as much as a difference in the study certainly now to the layperson that is driving through san francisco and walking through san francisco there seems a tremendous difference would is make sense to reexamine that standard. >> good evening supervisors sarah john environmental impact officer we're in tandem with a lot of changes in the

transportation analysis look at the transportation analysis guidelines that is among the issues to be considered, however, in terms of the maturely change over time and is or isn't reflected in the transportation analysis when we are doing the transportation analysis look at the study from the time that the accounts have take place so to the degree that we are considering we're not just considering the addition of the project we're also considering overall growth within the area and overall increases in the traffic so we have pickup on the increases in the traffic that are occurring over time through the analysis and essentially taking new accounts would not be expected to add addition information about what kinds of traffic

conditions might be for seeable or present at the time that a project is expected p implemented we've picked up on the exterminate growth that is part of projects and the accumulative analysis if anything we're taking new accounted with increased background traffic this is the impacts of the ratify in the area so essential that is not going to provide a worst case scenario of what the project might add given the conditions at the time. >> do you mind just explaining that last part of you're statement sorry so essentially we're looking how much a traffic

might be adding to the intersections surrounding the site it takes a fair amount of traffic from one level of service down to a worse level of service so you are essentially if you're in a situation you're adding on project traffic to background traffic the more traffic around the area the less of an incremental impact on the traffic so we're doing updated accounts and seeing there is more traffic in the area first of all, we might be seeing there is the same thing of tracking we've amended in the eir through the accumulative analysis, and, secondly, it would tend to you know the result would be more

likely to understate the impacts rather than provide what we had assessed in doing our eir analysis as a worst case scenario of the project. >> this is very much coming from a layperson prospective anyone that may not understand all the technical aspects of ceqa i guess i think what come up for a lot of the residents if our district and around the city maybe our analysis is inadequate it didn't seem like the eir griffin of given the growth that is from a lay persons prospective when we look at the criticisms from our residents how we study the jobs density and impacts i think people look at what we were experiencing and

wonder if we predicted any of this with the growths in the city and i would say that our traffic impact analysis did predict the levels of congestion we're seeing we have particularly in the areas surrounding those transit center district plan areas in this environmental impact report we saw many intersections going to a lot of traffic to this area the construction impacts that the we assessed were significant we did a fairly unusual construction the construction impacts on traffic would be significant in this area so, yes we did predict a lot of increased traffic in the city and weer expecting that.

>> so i guess the next question why not a better way of implementing this. >> there is a limited amount you can do to mitigate forgive traffic impacts typically there's a little bit of adjustment in terms of signal mr. haney things like that one you know for the immediate impacts at an intersection you can do is add lanes add capability and widened the intersection to move cars through quickly that is not something we do in san francisco typically partially because we have a constrained city not something that is something we have the space to do and the other reason san francisco has made a number of policy

decisions not prioritizing the movement of cars and you know essentially to accept traffic in the interest of modes of transportation. >> i appreciate that response my second question on the shadows the other issue that has been brought up by the appellants and it southern of me the limited open space in district 6 and shadow and it's impact on the enjoyment of our parks the updated 2015 shadow analysis for howard differs the transparency of class using the 20 foot parapet am i pronouncing that correctly i want planning to comment on this this is a big issue in the district because the rooftop parapet reach up to 50 feet we're seeing that

utilized in the tall buildings in the south of market so i was hoping that planning could comment on that and sticking around that. >> well, the shadow study was done at the request of the sponsor they used the moving forward they could model a transparent rooftop screening we didn't side that in our internal revenue analysis question look at the bulk massing but i'm not yeah - i'm not sure about the shadow if we could fad that. >> lisa planning department staff if i could to add to what mr. louis said the eir analysis relied on a shadow that modeled the building as a shadow mass is provided an estimate or projected the amount

of shadow a shadow worse case scenario the pardon asked that it take advantage of the improvements in the methodologies that allows for modeling of transparent building features in that way showing that the project will have less shadow than what we recorded in the eir so the important thing to remember is that the eir adequately identified the project will have a significant shadow impact and the updated shadow analysis didn't change that conclusion we had adequate information to substantiate our findings and don't disagree there is a significant shadow impact. >> thank you. >> supervisor wiener.

>> thank you just briefly follow-up on in terms of the congestion and mitigate that congestion, of course, the solution to mitigating congestion is to have world-class public transportation and that's what gets ulcer us to the actuation evacuation calculation we don't prioritize car movements and so more congestion because we haven't coupled the development with great public transportation that's really the only way that we'll ever mitigate not eneventual to have congestion we need to make the right policy decisions. >> okay supervisor wiener. >> for always be consistent (laughter). >> next, we have a

presentation from the project sponsor. >> good evening mixes i'm for the howard project we're here to respectfully ask the board uphold the final eir for the 75 howard project and reject this appeal we concurring or concur with the planning department on the record and in writing the eir clearly satisfies ceqa as the department statistics no new information on the objection the eir deserves to be upheld i'd like to address a couple of things i know it's late 75 howard is in the transit district plan area and in the transit rich do you only core it is occupied and supervisor kim

stated by an approximately 5 hundred and 50 car parking space it is in the embarcadero freeway and represented a structure that can't be built again, today the only question properly before the board is the accuracy of the eir i want to spend a moment to talk about 9 issues that were addressed in order to set the context the city recently recently adapted it site and in adapting the city increased the height at the same time imposing a unique obligations to help to pay for the center in critical project for the city and region it is important to note this site received no increases in height as part of plan, however, it is the conclusion in the planned air this plan pay for

the assessments of amount of approximately $43 million over years as well as paying the open space and street improvements and transportation fees the 75 howard project an unavoided good the project proposes to tear down the garage with a code compliant residential building with ground floor retail a platinum certification not only did this project address the environmental wrongs of past as note supports the development of critical infrastructure and the improvement of the district as well as paying all applicable fees to that end the project sponsor has been pursuing it's approvals contributing more to avenue than themo