the children are right there at that schoolyard every day. and out there in the sun which in san francisco we don't have much of with the fog and our inclement wind and stuff. so let's keep the kids in the sun and the mission the mission. awe thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. given that we have -- we are throughout the city we're overproducing above moderate rate housing, and we, in fact, have in the first two years since between 2015 and 2027 we have either produced or entitled over twice as much of the moderate housing as -- the moderate rate housing as the -- as as laid out in the articles, there is no reason whatsoever to

accept the harms that will come from this project. there is no reason to accept the massive commercial gentrifycation with all of the impacts that will have and the loss in terms of the loss of livelihood and of necessary goods and services for, above all, this very special latino, predominantly traditionally latino community that is also working class, multicultural working class community and latino culture. there is no reason to accept the influx of yet more lyfts and ubers and all the environmental harm that the vehicles will necessarily bring. there is no reason to accept the potential shadow impacks on the school -- impacts on the schools. there is no reason to accept the overall alienating effect of the influx of the particular

newcomers on the community, nor is there any reason to accept the impacts of their propensity to call the police on black and brown people will have on the formal and informal latino cultural center and still less, the risk to the life of the young latino men that this will bring. above all, that this will bring. i would ask that you reject this project and uphold the appeal. >> supervisor: thank you for your comments. next speaker please. if there are any other members of the public who would like to address the board on behalf of the appellant, please come up to the microphone after this gentleman. >> buenos aires. i am roberto and today i am here to remind you that the mission is ground zero fe evictions and gentrification. we have loss 10,000 people, 7,000 being la tee knows. i am here on behalf of enrique

who died homeless three blocks from my house in his car. we've had other people we had to bury because they live on the streets. we're trying to convince people that our schools should turn into shelters. children to be able to have a safe place to sleep at at night because we have 7,000 people out on the streets that we as a city have allowed that. 3,000 of them being children. now, you all go to nice home, a nice bed, but think about these children who are living out on the streets. it is criminal that we are living in a city that has generate sod many revenues at an all-time high and people are

being fished out and living in the streets. we have police that just doesn't tell you to move off the block when you were homeless, but tell you to get out of the neighborhood. because somebody put out an orreder to get everybody out of our neighborhood. we have had 36 developers who have developed housing in the mission over the last seven years. i was told, roberto, we're going to work out of our crisis by letting developers come in and build, and you are going to get a percentage of those for your community. well, that was bullshit. it's been seven years and it hasn't solved the crisis. we have been bombed -- >> gracias, roberto. thank you for your comments. [comments away from microphone]

>> thank you for your comments. [comments away from microphone] >> supervisor: thank you. madam president. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who wold like to provide public comment at this time in support of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is now closed. we will have a presentation now from the planning department, and you will have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, president breed and board members. julie moore, senior environmental planning, planning department staff. the question before you is has the appellant demonstrated that the ceqa determination, the c.p.e., is not based on substantial evidence? the department believes the c.p.e. fully meets the requirements of ceqa and is supported by substantial evidence. the department's written appeal responses address all of the appellant's claim, but i would like to focus on three key

issues. as i will discuss the existing building on the project site is not an historic resource under ceqa, and therefore, there would be no peculiar historic impact. the appellant's claims regarding eastern neighborhoods growth projections are incorrect and misleading as are arguments regarding environmental impacts of changing transportation patterns, gentrifycation and displacement. and finally the environmental impacts on the school were analyzed in the c.p.e. in regards to our reliance on the eastern neighborhoods e.i.r., the appellant argues that the e.i.r. is outdated because the number of residential projects in the department pipeline has exceeded e.i.r. projections. the board has heard other similar arguments in ceqa appeal, most recently for 1296 shotwell and bryant street cases and dismissed them in all cases. growth has not exceeded the

growth projections used to support environmental impact analysis in the e.i.r. building permits have been issued for only 25% of the projects in the mission area pipeline. as found in the superior court decision on the 901 16th street project case, projects in the pipeline represent future growth. and not actual growth. and physical and environmental effects cannot have resulted from projects that are merely contemplated. regardless, growth projections in the e.i.r. are not limits or caps on development, but were used to estimate the physical and environmental impacts that could be -- that could result from growth allowed under the area plan. there is no evidence in the record showing that significant physical and environmental impacts in excess of those expected in the e.i.r. have resulted from growth. and the appellant does not provide any evidence to substantiate that such physical

impacts are occurring. and the appellant states that conditions in planned areas have changed such that new impacts not considered in the e.i.r. are occurring. all of these changed conditions with the exception of transportation are socioeconomic changes that are not considered environmental impacts under ceqa. with regard to the alleged transportation impacts, it is important to clarify that the e.i.r. did find that there would be significant and unavoidable transportation impacts from the rezoning and anticipated development under the plan. the board accepted these impacts as unavoidable consequences of the increased density and growth throughout the eastern neighborhoods when it adopted the plan. the question before you is not whether the project would contribute to the significant impacts, but rather, would the project result in impacts that are worse than expected in the e.i.r.? to answer the question, the department conducted the project

specific transportation analysis for the c.p.e. not surprisingly, given that the project has zero parking and is one block from a bart station, that analysis did not find that the project would have transportation impacts that are worse than anticipated. in addition, to further address the claims made in this and similar ceqa appeals, the department conducted additional transportation studies to compare traffic and transit conditions with the conditions anticipated in the e.i.r. the results of these studies show that transit delay, transit capacity, and traffic volumes are all better than would be expected based on the projected volumes. and the transportation conditions are not more severe than the eastern neighborhoods e.i.r. anticipated. as previously stated, the issues raised by the appellant regarding gentrification and displacement of residences and

local businesss is a socioeconomic issue outside the scope of ceqa environmental impact analysis. socioeconomic effects may be considered under ceqa only to the extent that a link can be accomplished between socioeconomic effects and adverse physical environmental impacts. at the direction of the board, the planning department evaluated whether gentrification and displacement of existing businesses and residence cans be attributed to market rate development. as presented in the 2017 report by a.l.h. urban and regional economics, neither the data nor the relevant literature support the claim that market rate development causes gentrification or displacement. additional retail supply and demand analysis in our appeal response demonstrate that the area within one half mile of the project site and the mission district as a whole are regional shopping destinations providing

substantially more retail supply than can be supported by the residents. the conclusions indicate that broad socioeconomic changes and trends in the retail industry have greater influence on the commercial uses in the mission than composition of the immediate population of the neighborhood. with respect to residential rents and displacement, the literature showing that housing production itself does not increase costs of the existing housing base, but rather, helps suppress increases in home prices and rents in existing buildings. in conclusion, the available evidence does not support the appellant's claims that it would cause commercial or residential displacement. however, even if it did, these effects would not in and of themselves constitute environmental impacts under ceqa. finally, with respect to claims regarding environmental effects on the adjacent school, the eastern neighborhood's e.i.r. evaluated the effects of development throughout the plan

area, and considered that projects would be constructed adjacent to sensitive receptors such as residences, school, day cares, senior citizen facilities, and hospitals. the location of the preschool adjacent to the project site is not a new or unforeseen circumstance not analyzed in the e.i.r. the environmental effects were analyzed in the c.p.e. and all significant impacts on the school must be reduced or avoided through applicable regulations and mitigation measures identified in the e.i.r. i am going to hand it now to my colleague who is going to dig discuss a little bit further the air quality. >> good afternoon. president breed and members of the board, chris curran with the environmental planning staff. i wanted to expand a little bit on was mentioned about the eastern neighborhoods and the project specific evaluation of

effects of the project construction on the school and specifically with respect to air quality and noise impacts on the school. the eastern neighborhood's e.i.r. did disclose that construction of the projects allowed under the plan would have significant impacts on adjacent development including schools, residences, nursing homes with respect to air quality effects and noise impact and identified mitigation measures to address those effects. for the c.p.e., again, the evaluation focuses on whether this project would have such effects that are substantially more severe than those disclosed in the program e.i.r. and the c.p.e. concludes and i can direct you to the pages in the c.p.e. that the project with

the applicable mitigation measures as well as newer regulations adopted since the time that eastern neighborhoods program e.i.r. was certified, would not have substantially more severe impacts on the adjacent school with respect to health impacts or noise effects. and for example, there are two mitigation measures that address construction noise. these are the state-of-the-art construction noise mitigation measures. they include things such as mufflers on equipment, barrier fences, shrouds, and really all of the measures in which we are able to reduce construction noise impacts, and with respect to health risk in particular, and there was a number of speakers who commented about dust impacts. there is a required dust control

plan and reviewed and approved by the department of health to specifically address health effects of construction dust on adjacent receptors including the school children. with that, the department will conclude our presentation. >> supervisor: excuse me. >> same thing about -- >> supervisor: excuse me. no outbursts in the chamber, please. next speaker. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor: starting with the school since you just ended that, given that, as you heard from many of the public commenters, the children at said rodriguez are primarily low income and unsubsidized tuition and a speech and learning center there. and the impact on the children of the noise and the dust and

the chemicals that are released could be quite severe. that was not analyzed specifically in the e.i.r., so could you discuss that and whether or not that is a problem. and why you don't believer that it is a problem? >> yes. chris curn, department staff. the c.p.e. and e.i.r. didn't specifically address the socioeconomic status of the students at the school. what it did address or what the analyses did address is physical health effects, and just for reference with respect to the air quality thresholds of significance for health protection, we use very health protective standard. it is actually the threshold is based on the breathing rates of an infant in utero and exposed

24/7 for a period of 30 year. these are extremely health protective standards that we apply. again t noise mitigation measures that are required are the state-of-the-art noise control measures during construction. were we to focus on the analysis on the socioeconomic status of the students, it is unclilikely that we would reach any other conclusion with respect to the mitigation measures. >> supervisor: i know this isn't before us, but were there any specific requirements for the view or conditions in the c.e.u. that will protect these children? there are two different campuses with two different schoolyards. and my understanding is that one of the school yards wasn't even discussed during the hearing before the planning commission. i understand that that -- that the view is not before us right now, but i am like the public

very concerned about the health and well being of the students. and so i wanted to ask that question. >> i am going to see if my colleague the address the questions regarding the c.e.u. rich craig. >> rich mccray. the conditional use authorization didn't have anything specific regarding the adjacent child care uses. they do have a noise mitigation measure that was added on to it to basically monitor noise during construction as part of some of the adjacent outreach. there are some of the standard conditions regarding garbage and transformer and construction, etc. >> supervisor: okay. but there was no consideration specifically to the children at the school. >> correct. it was mentioned in the hearing anecdotally, but nothing specific added into the motion. >> supervisor: okay. going back to ceqa because that is, unfortunately, the only thing before us right now, you

had mentioned that if there were socioeconomic impacts like the impact of noise and dust and construction right by a school where children with speech and language difficulties could be incredibly problematic impact. under ceqa stlshgs , is there any way to take the well being of the students into consideration given that the impact of the construction does impact the environment. but the particular -- the particular human beings that i am worried about in the impact are these children. can you talk about thae can you talk about that? >> again, just to clarify, we don't categorize impacts related

to children and those are physical environmental facts we have addressed under ceqa. as i had already mentioned the air quality health risk standards are very protective and we believe they are suitable as health protective standards for all children regardless of socioeconomic status really based on the physical effects. with respect to the noise impact analysis, we consider and it includes speech interference, so we are looking at whether or not interior noise levels would effect or interfere with speech, with people's ability to communicate. that is one of the many factors that we considered in our noise impact analysis. and again, the determinations that with noise l kros during

construction -- with noise controls during construction, the impacts could be reduced to less than significant level. again, as i mentioned, the socioeconomic status of the sensitive receptors isn't really the controlling factor in the analysis of the physical effects. it's that they are human beings as they mentioned and that they are impacted by by that on the ground. >> supervisor: maybe this is a question for the city attorney. i guess what i'm asking is -- under ceqa, there wasn't a specific analysis done regarding the impact of the noise on a particular students that will be impacted when this project is under construction. and so i am trying to understand

whether or not the fact there wasn't regard under ceqa to a specific population and whether that is a problem and perhaps we need to take another look at that and design mitigations to the particular population impacted. does that make sense? >> kate stacy from the city attorney's office. that is not so much a legal question as a factual question. there are methods in ceqa for analyzing impacts on sensitive receptors and he talked about that a little bit. it is a factual and parcel specific question for the city to consider. whether the mitigation measure is specifically tailored to a particular population, it may be effective if not tailored to

that population, but i am going to defer to the ef fa efficacy to the planning staff or this this board's determination as to whether the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. i am not sure that was your question, but i think you are asking about the efficacy of mitigation measures that don't specifically call out a particular adjacent user. does that help? >> supervisor: yeah. so can you point out where in your report that there is specific analysis on this issue? in relation to the students at the two campuses. >> yes. so again, chris curran, planning department staff.

the air quality and health risk analysis on the school is addressed -- really beginning on page 26 of the c.p.e. and goes on for the next couple of pages, with specific mention of the school as sensitive receptor. where is the noise? on page 23, the noise impact analysis does address specifically construction noise impacts on the adjacent school. and then there is also a discussion of shadow effects on the school beginning on page 31. >> supervisor: okay. thanks. thanks for that. and then in terms of shadows, i understand that prop k only concerns shadows on public parks

and open space, but that in practice that has been extended to share school yards? because they are publicly available open space. i know there is no currently a shared schoolyard program at said rodriguez, but my understanding or i've heard and someone in public comment mentioned that all schools in san francisco will soon be sh e shared school yards. will that in the future impact whether or not there is a specific shadow analysis for every schoolyard in the e.i.r.? because in this e.i.r., you really only studied one of the two school yards that are impacted. >> i am lisa gibson,

environmental review officer. in response to that question, first, i do want to acknowledge that you're correct that our ceqa impact analysis does stem from the vote of the people to nsid impacts of shadow on publicly accessible open space under the jurisdiction of rec park to be shadowment i pacts of concern. and we have -- shadow to be impacts of concern. we have extended under our practice under analysis of ceqa to shadows including schoolyards. so in the future, we're for any school that is a part of the shared school yards program, we will be considering and looking at impacts on those school yards. for informational purposes, we reported on the effects of shadow on the schoolyard and noted on the two parcels as a response to the appeal and if you see on page 7 of the appeal

response, we noted that the project wouldn't have any shadows on the 2950 mission street campus schoolyard under the articles that are concerned under prop k, and furthermore, outside of those hours -- i'm sorry, and then in addition, that they would not have any shadow on areas that are used as play areas. so we focus our analysis not just on the property boundaries, but on the particular uses and activities of an individual recreational open space. so i think it's fair to say that even were we to have looked at this as an analysis, we would do under ceqa pursuant to standard practice, and in san francisco, we would haven't found there to be a significant impact in this case. >> supervisor: even on the schoolyard where there is a shadow from 9:00 to 11:00? >> i will let my colleague correct me.

on the one to the south, he is indicating there is an impact if we were to evaluate under section 295 -- pardon me for that error. but if we would have analyzed this -- if the law was different and section 295 did concern itself with these types of properties, then in that case, case, would you please expand on that? >> chris curran. just to explain a little bit in detail. we did not conduct the full analysis of shadow effects that we would were the schoolyard controlled under section 295. but as the shadow analysis in the appeal response states, the schoolyard to the south across would be shaded from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. -- to the west.

>> thank you. >> i basically have the same concerns. let me see if i can dig a little deeper. in regards to the study, let's

take this first. did you look at -- when you looked at the health guidance, guidelines, are you looking at it for an adult? for a 12-year-old? or a 3-year-old? >> as i mentioned, for health impacts, again, the matters are fairly complex. for health risk in particular, we are look at -- looking at the breathing rate seven in utero infant expose 24/7. it is an extremely conservative standard. >> i'm just wondering -- i mean

in terms of the mitigation, in particular with us, you know, sometimes people assume a lot about us. and even with the noise factor, depending on what kind of children, special needs children, or not, that noise can really contribute to their inability to hear or to speak, meaning that they are going to be less likely to learn as much as they could. was there any discussion, in terms of mitigation -- because when schools -- when the schools themselves have to go through renovation, most of the times, they will move the whole school out, into a staging school, so

there's no concerns about whether these kids are breathing the dust or not. was there any discussion with the school district to see if there's any open schools where these kids could actually be at, temporarily, over the time of the construction? can you speak in the mic? >> the department is not aware of discussions between the school and the school district about relocating students. with respect to, again, the dust control plan, it has been reviewed and approved by the department of public health. again, specifically to protect the off-site receptors, it was designed to accomplish that. and then i can direct you to the mitigation measures that are in the documents on pages 45 and

46. and i guess i would like to emphasize the point, the conclusion isn't that the construction noise, and dust affect -- couldn't have impacts on the school, rather the conclusion is, with the mitigation measures and clients with regulations, those effects would not be substantial then were anticipated in the eastern neighborhood. again, it did address the construction noise and air quality, including receptors such as schools. >> if this project, if sfu is not upheld, what...

i guess, what possibilities are there for the developer to talk to the school district about, possibly, supporting a move of the carrots, or the children to the development? >> can't hear you. >> excuse me, don't yell out in the chamber. >> you know, that's a question that i think is between the project sponsor and the school district. and not for the planning department. >> okay. that's it for now. >> thank you. supervisor if you are? >> thank you. i have a question of whether or not the school district had a determination about this project at all.

>> can you repeat the question? >> i wanted to know if the san francisco unified school district had a determination about this project. >> we are not aware of any determination over here on the environmental side, let my colleagues on the planning side perhaps can speak to that. >> thank you. >> i am from the planning staff department. while i did not receive any direct correspondence from the school district, i know through the project sponsor he was in conversations with the school next door which resulted in them eliminating the on-site parking that they originally had, due to concerns from the school district about vehicles travelling along the alley with children crossing. >> what you are saying is that this project never came before the san francisco board of education for approval? >> not that i'm aware of. >> do you know that the unified school district board of education is aware of this project? that it is adjacent to one of

the child development centres? >> to the notification process they would have been notified as a property owner of the property next door. >> but nobody reached out to them to have a conversation? >> i would have to defer to the project sponsor staff. other than the required notice and, staff did not. >> okay. actually, after serving on the san francisco board of education, the project proposed at 16th and mission came before the board of education, and so i'm wondering why a determination wasn't made at the san francisco board of education, and why there wasn't outreach to the san francisco board of education about this project. >> i believe that we've answer the question to the greatest of our ability. we did do the required notification under the planning

department requirements, and we can't speak to the school board's required approvals. >> okay. what you were telling me is actually that the school board, you actually didn't do an active outreach to the san francisco unified school district, or board of education, but just a regular notice as anyone would get, if there's going to be a construction nearby, near the vicinity of their residents? is that correct? >> that is correct. >> okay. >> anything else? thank you. i saw your name on the list. did you remove that? >> i did remove it because i had a question for a supervisor but i don't see her in the chamber. >> she's behind you. >> she is busy. i don't have a question. thank you. >> she had a question for you, yes. through the chair.

>> through the chair. supervisor, i wanted to know, from your understanding, for what reasons is the school not participating in the schoolyard this year? >> great question. well, it's not yet participating in the shared schoolyard program. currently, they are in the process of involving all s.f.u. st schools in this shared schoolyard program, and that is a concern for me in this project that the shadow impact on the two impacts -- on the total playgrounds are both public schools which will be compartment -- become part of the schoolyard program and has not been fully analysed. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the board wish to comment on this item? do you have any other additional questions? we will now move to the project sponsor as a rebuttal.

please come forward. you have ten minutes for your rebuttal. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the project sponsor are rti. before getting into the merits of the appeal before you today, a brief background and history of the project. as you have heard, it is a 75 unit eight story project with ground floor commercial space. would replace a surface parking lot on the laundromat owned by the project sponsor. they're three other laundromats within 300 feet of the site. it is an ideal location for infill housing. it is mixed income with affordable units being offered at no higher than 50-55 cents mac am i. if it is a rental project, units, both affordable and market rates would be offered to a wide range on of -- of residents. zero car parking, ample bike

parking, location within walking distance of 24th street park, and on a stretch of mission served by a number of many mobile lines. on top of the on-site affordable units, the project sponsor will impact... it was first proposed in march of 2014. over four years ago. if the appeal is denied, and with some luck, the new housing could be ready for occupancy by mid-2020, nearly six years later. just answer a few of the questions that were asked of the planning staff, the project sponsor has been in communication with the san francisco unified school district, and we were told to communicate with the facility's director at the school district and we are also told the school district had no position on the project and that if it did, it would hold a regularly notice of hearing. i just wanted to clarify that for you.

as you have heard from staff, approximately two months after the planning commission approved the project, the department asked you to continue the hearing his for a study to be done. that study confirmed what was significant points. first, the property has a rich cultural history that is tied to community-based organizations in the mission and occupied the building from 1973-1985. second, these groups left the property long ago. since they left, significant interior and exterior alterations have taken place. the required fiscal -- physical characteristics tied their property to its past cultural history, no longer exist. the laundromat and surface parking do not convey historic integrity. it is an administrative hub for community-based organizations. a few points about impacts on the school district. despite what some would have you believe, the sponsor has actually worked hard to accommodate design and operational feedback related to

the school. the project originally proposed offstreet parking off of the alley, which as you know, it fronts both campuses and bisects them to the rear of the project site. after the prior principle of the school shared concerns with the project sponsor, this was free entitlement where the project sponsor was communicating with the principal of the elementary school. the sponsor eliminated car parking at the principal post as a request. the project also is proposing all of the passenger in vehicle loads on mission street well clear of the campus to the south, which minimizes impacts with student drop-off and cars travelling down the alley. and, is planning staff has detailed, shadow impact on the schools is not an issue for the organization. they have for the last ten years, and eastern neighborhoods, when shadow is cast on public parks and open spaces, that is the rule. neither of the schools close

desk play areas is a publicly accessible. although we do not apply to the school post as play areas, the project did do a shadow study prepared by a well respected shadow consultant that does a number of the studies that the planning department commissions -- at the planning department commissions. just to reiterate the amount of shadow that is being cast on the play area, to the south, it is being cast outside of the areas that planning staff looks out, which is 9-4. it is being cast only in an area used for staff parking, and storage. on the bartlett street campus to the west, shadow would fall during the morning hours only, but not during the afternoon. most of the shading occurs before 9:00 am, and by 11:00 am, only one quarter of the schoolyard with have shipped -- would have shadow.

no new shadow would be cast during the afternoon. about the construction related impacts, i want to briefly summarize some of the principal impacts. they were all mentioned but not really in order. you can get a sense for, yes, this project is very long and very detailed. and the technical background studies done adequately addressed all potential impacts on the surrounding school. there was a project specific sight mitigation plan that was approved by the department of public health, and that includes wind screen and monitoring in the ability for the department of public health to ask for enhanced measures. there's a project specific noise continuation plan that needs to be prepared by a qualified acoustical consulted and reviewed by the department of building an inspection before construction can begin. there's a mitigation measure that we discussed. the project also complies with san francisco post as a noise

ordinance, which this board has passed that incorporates a number of construction mitigation measures. it needs to comply with san francisco's dust control ordinance and comply with the host of regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions. shifting gears and talking a little bit about the eastern neighborhoods plan, you heard a new -- a number of arguments related to the plant itself. these arguments are not new. most, if not all are included in the appeal filed against many mixed income housing projects in the mission. only a few of those appeals have made it to this board, because no settle. appellant's claim about the easter neighborhood eir are very similar to arguments that were raised by... which this board heard and rejected last year. just run through some basics on that project, that was a nine story density bonus project with 94 dwelling units which is one story taller and almost 20 more

units than this project. it is located in the same zoning district as this one. like the appellant here, that project's appellant claimed it was stale and failed to adequately address issues such as transportation circulation, socioeconomic impacts, land-use, aesthetics, and significant findings. they claim to cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed in the project location within the cultural district was not adequately addressed. this board rejected the appeal unanimously denying each of those grounds for overturning the exemption document that relied on the eastern neighborhood. the difference between that project and this project, is it was 100% affordable while this project is mixed income. setting aside the policy point, the mixed income housing is part of the solution to san francisco's housing unaffordable

housing crisis. affordability, alone is not an issue. this board needs to have substantial evidence before it that shows new or more significant impacts due to growth projections or income levels of future residents. as a plenty department staff has painstakingly detailed, the appellant has detailed -- identified none. simply, it would be inconsistent to overturn the cpe based on the eastern neighborhood's eir, simply because it is mixed income instead of 100% affordable. and finally, taking a step back, the eastern neighborhood's eir is important for all types of housing projects. both affordable and mixed income. not just in the mission, but also in soma, showplace square, the dogpatch, and other neighborhoods. in fact, a number of affordable housing projects have recently relied on, are expected to rely

on the eastern neighborhood's eir for their clearance including 143 units, hundred 57 units, 48 units, and 130. this is a very viable area plan eir. so, in summary, requiring further environmental review for this project is unsupported by the substantial evidence in front of you. we would also send a potential anti- housing message discouraging the construction of new homes of all income levels in the mission, and other parts of the city that conduct review for individual projects by tearing off of an area plan such as eastern neighborhoods. it would further exacerbate the city post as housing crisis. we request you deny this appeal. to wife your time. >> thank you. at this time we will open up for public comment.

for those that are in support of the project. please line up on the right. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i live on the 400 block of bartlett street. proximally 250 feet from the proposed project. my 4-year-old son is a special needs student that attends the school. i find many of the arguments today disingenuous to the health and safety of children of that school. we support this project moving forward. if the city cannot build housing projects one block from a park station on one of the most heavily transit served streets in the city, i think the affordability of our city is doomed. i think we owe it to all san franciscans do not let projects like this be mired in endless process and i urge you to reject the appeal.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am on behalf of the housing action coalition and here we go again. so many times over the many years in the past, we have seen it used -- a tool intended to protect the environment used as a handy convenient tool to oppose car free, high density urban infill on a transit corridor report that is, we are using the organization as a means to impede, abstract and a late new housing, and much worse, prevent san francisco from reducing its carbon footprint. i would say that's hearing has much less to do with the environment in a very common tendency among our citizens when faced with change to the built environment to come to a hearing and say, we have been here a long time. we like it the way it is. there is no room for you. get lost.

my neighbours in forest hill use this argument and this position very effectively to kill 150 units for low income seniors. this project has endured years of obstacles and delays in it's entitlement process. a process for which san francisco is infamous, and has gained national attention. in the debate about sb 827, hearings like this, and hearings that occur across the state are eloquent evidence of why a bill like 827 is so necessary if we are ever going to get our arms around the housing affordability and displacement crisis. the planning department does a terrific job on this. it is balanced, it's exhaustive, and it is fair. you should uphold the work they've done and denied the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i have commented many times before we asked to make this decision based on the california environmental quality act. we do understand this is a transit site. and in interest of being a transit first city, shooting down and denying projects like this are upholding the appeal. we are concerned about the message it would send across the city about where housing is or is not appropriate. we also know that all data indicates that people moving into new homes in san francisco, nearly three quarters of them, were previously living in san francisco. when we talk about who these homes will be four, by and large, they are for people who are already san franciscans and already our neighbours. already in our community. and so, you know, we have a shortage of homes in the city. the only solution to that is to build more homes, and that is the decision that we are dealing with.

and i guess you get to deal with today. we are also perfectly aware of the data is a strong indicator that the construction of market rate and a hundred% affordable housing is an anti- to place -- anti- displacement tool. is many tools that we need to fight displacement where affordability and displacement is at an all-time high. we are literally losing -- living in the most unaffordable city in the history of earth. and not building more housing for people will only exacerbate that. given all of the knowledge, i think the one thing where everyone can agree is we have seen a high concentration of new housing in one portion of this city, and i wholeheartedly want to work together with everyone in this room to build more housing in neighborhoods that include but are not limited to, pacific heights, i'm rich until, the richmond, the sunset, the excelsior, definitely forest hill. west portal and coal valley. i think all of those neighborhoods would improve with a few more neighbours. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. these project by project battles are miserable. they are exhausting for the community that has to come out here and voice their support or opposition. they certainly don't bring out the best in all of us. they are miserable. we can't keep making decisions like this. if we want to stop building market rate apartments in the mission, we need to down on the mission and ups own wealthy communities. that would get us toward our housing goals. we could up stone glen park, which also has a part station. we could up zone in the richmond, st. francis would, district 11. many communities that have not built their far -- fair share of housing. we have seen about 60% of the housing built in district six. we have not seen housing be

built in every district throughout the city. and so, the people in the mission our right to be frustrated and angry that we have up zone to their community, and not other communities. we have to build housing. we have to stop doing this project by project tearing each other apart. we have to make the decisions about what our zoning is going to be and make it in a more equitable fashion, and make it at a more higher level of government and stop these battles where we tear each other apart. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello everyone. tough act to follow. i just want to reiterate what laura said. i think we are burning a lot of time in these sorts of meetings. like that project sponsors already noted, in the best case scenario, if this were to go forward and it should be built, that this good idea that would be built could be built no sooner than 2020. i think that's a tragedy.

because this project does come with affordable housing. i think 55 cents mac am i. and the supervisors, i think you made a clear promise to your community that we would get to 5,000 affordable units, sorry, i forget the time frame, but in the future. if we have to fight project by project every single, you know, proposal that could potentially add any amount to that number of affordable housing, i think we will be here a long time in order to make the number. i urge you not only to deny this appeal, but you, you know, work together to find a way where we can say this is baseline acceptable for what a project for the mission should look like. like laura said, if we don't want to do any market rates in the mission, that is fine. let's figure out the plan that would allow us to build what we need to build, if we need to build a court -- affordable housing as well as market rate housing, we can't keep

slaughtering each other in the skirmish battles about nothing in particular. this shadow thing is ridiculous. >> thank you. next speaker. i am the lead with mission. i am going to third what laura said and second what vincent said. we have to stop fighting about individual projects. we have to make it legal to build these kinds of buildings everywhere in the city. this is probably the worst a way to manage a safety. you should be ashamed of yourselves. why are we fighting about one building, in the mission, when you can't build an apartment building in 76 cents mac in the city? you can't build it in district 11. okay you can build in parts of district 11. but 76% of the city does not allow anything more than a

duplex. fix it. you can fix it. and you choose not to and you bring your hands where -- over buildings like this and you avert your signal and do nothing. fix it. up zone the west side. >> thank you. any other speakers on this item that will speak in favor of this item, please come forward. seeing none, we will move, we will close public comment on this. now we will move to the appellant's rebuttal. you have up to three minutes. >> too much to say and too little time. well, one of the first things you could do towards fixing it is to insist that the planning department do a proper accusative in the -- analysis. you heard them. they do their analysis based on what is built now. accumulative analysis requires current pipeline and foreseeable

future projects. at that is not being done. you can fix it by doing it. i was a little bit amused about the remark about the mixed income levels. ninety% market, ten% affordable. that is mixed income housing i guess. the department said that there was no substantial evidence that there is not to be incremental higher environmental effects, based on the encouragement delete -- in front -- incrementally higher units in the pipeline, well belong -- beyond what was studied. i looked, actually in anticipation of that. the eir has, as he remembered, they had four different scenarios. no projected a, b., c., but a project see being the most

aggressive one. this is twice that. so, they talked about environmental effects in various aspects like traffic or air quality. increasing, as you would expect for each additional layer of housing construction in the various scenarios. so, if it's going to be double the most aggressive housing scenario, down there must be a substantial environmental effect. by the way we are not in the business of doing eir. we are just community people. it is the department's obligation to do the eir and to do the accumulative analysis, and to figure out whether it various, whether we are even here now in terms of building. they don't even have that information in the pipeline. about how much is built, and titled and under review