when they greet you with sincerity that they know, you know, how long it's been since you have come into the restaurant. that's a rarity to have people who really care about you when you come into a business and have that neighborhood feel and that's something that the mission is losing, same as minute by minute. [buzzer] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> [inaudible] i own a small business in the mission, we do design fabcation and work in the construction industry, the construction of this proposed building time with large quantities of concrete require drilling, blasting and release harmful particles in the air.

chrystalline silica is found and can travel into the lungs causing an incurable lung disease caused by even small exposure. also causes lung cancer, c.o.p.d. kidney disease and could trigger asthma in young children. in september last year after years of known risk and thousands of fatalities due to exposure, osha enacted new regulations to make work sites safer for its workers with the goal of preventing 600 deaths every year. i'm concerned we don't have proper protections for secondary adjacent exposure.

they are at greater risk of harm. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm karen cliff, i'm a retired social worker and so for -- >> [off mic] could you use the microphone? >> sorry, karen cliff. karen cliff. >> clerk: ma'am, i'm resetting your time, so please begin. >> sorry, i'm a retired social worker, so for more than 50 years have been concerned with providing and protecting basic human needs such as housing.

this project does not provide sufficient affordable housing. i have been in district 9 for 34 years and have been lucky and don't have to move, i hope you could provide and protect affordable housing for those not so lucky in district 9. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi there, my name is vicki. i'm born and raised in the mission district san francisco. from calle cuatro as well, former non-profit worker. one thing that hits me the most are things disappearing in the mission. from sunlight to working families to school children, it's really sad when i walk around, i don't see them any more. i wish people could see the mission i grew up in. also, i just am amazed that

people don't know the impact of children, when you are doing a lot of luxury development, let's look at the neighborhoods even if you are saying you are exempt from a community evaluation plan, let's look at the children nonetheless. we have to protect them. and the fact they are special needs children they need more protection, right? i would think that alone, just the fact we have children involved here, it warrants considering this appeal, approving this appeal. the businesses are suffering. i think about everything that's disappeared and i think of red cafe. i agree with ms. mary here who red cafe is one of the last institutions been there a long time. so i walk by there occasionally waiting for the day that i will see those signs before they disappear. i'm sorry, i get emotional but it's my hood where i grew up and it's no longer that. also i'm part of the alex memorial committee and something not considered is the sight line, one thing more and more people from the mission

could see the memorial and the one sight line that is a perfect site is the 26 mission site right in front of red cafe, we put up this building the memorial won't be seen by the community that fought for it. so considering all these factors we need to make sure that community is involved. we have to make sure that community is involved or else basically disappears, it's important and it's critically important that we make sure we save everybody -- [buzzer] [please stand by...

>> i urge you to defeat this. we don't need more empty units that will be error b. and b. or affordable by people who can afford to have their latte delivered on an electric scooter. that is what it's going on here. you will build another big thing that will be half empty in the market will take a hit. >> thank you.

>> thank you for your comment. >> my name is richard becker. i'm a local coordinator. it should be a national holiday. i would hope that the board, today is not going to pass a resolution declining the treatment of children along the border, and then vote in favor of this building. [applause] you know, if you travelled down -- i lived in the mission for 37 years. we are very close. i live a couple blocks away. when you travel down mission street now, there are scores, at least 60 or 70 shut down businesses, interspersed with the expensive restaurants. that's what this form of development has brought about. and is not only that, the soaring rents, the number of people who are homeless, you know, we

hear that we are supposed to combat the blue wave to rescue us from this despicable administration in washington. but the blue wave swept over san francisco many, many years ago. it swept over the state of california too. and yet we have soaring rents, and more and more homeless people every week. people are being driven out of their homes. you know, robert tillman says he will see you if you vote in favor of this appeal. you have a whole battery of attorneys here, and they can defend you. but you need to defend the people of san francisco and the people of the mission, the children in that center and the people of the city in general. i am a union member. i'm a long-time union support your. i would appeal to our brothers and sisters here from the construction trades not to go on record in support of this building. we need more housing, but we don't need this project. it is a terrible project. >> supervisor breed: thank you for your comments.

before the next speaker i will remind the audience that we recommend -- we welcome your presence here. if you like to show your support, you can use your support of hands. next speaker, please. thank you, manager you can provide your public comment when it is your opportunity. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am a mission resident. i moved to san francisco in 1971 from a small town in california. we moved to san francisco, and my parents worked at my aunt's bakery on 24th street. unit 1977, my parents opened up a bakery on 24th and full sen send, and it is my obligation here, my obligatory sense of community to come here today and asked -- ask you guys to stop this building, because a

community of san francisco's mission district is unique, just ask chinatown and just as fillmore it wasn't just as a hunters point was at one point. and what we are doing, as we are just breaking apart fabric of the city, and in the end, as many have already mentioned, it is going to become homogenized and we will just be another ivory town on the hill. again, san francisco, for me has been a place of culture. we moved here in 71 and we were best to chinatown school. we were late your best to hunter process point. i got to meet a lot of -- a lot of people in those years of my upbringing. they were black, white, chinese, filipino, korean, city college. i'm a product of city college. i see 24th street in the mission district in general as

being whitewashed and gentrified. i don't even have to see -- go further than just gentrification and you understand what's happening to the mission district. please stop this building from being billed and raised, as well as protect the children who are not just in that school, but all schools in the mission. there is the 16th monster, there's a 23rd street and false and building going. it will be over casting the school. there is a lot of stuff that is happening. >> supervisor breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello everyone. my name is marcella. i am a citizen. i am an african-american and i want to say that my opinion is to build this building, i don't support it because i see more buildings like this and other parts of the city, and in the mission district, it's better to

not build it, because for one thing, it is a shadow, like it was mentioned. it will disturb the children. it is an opportunity for the kids to have that fun life and it is important for them for their growth. and also in the air. that way we will prevent dust and the shadow. and if it is a building to be kept, to be built, it is better more like a low income building for housing for people who really need it. and also it is best to keep it more as a mission the way it is. i member at those back then they used to be a mission theatre and it is not there anymore. it is good to keep it the way it could be capped throughout these years, you know. it is remembering the hispanic, more hispanic, and it is good memories. i grew up here so i know how it is. i grew up in this area and it has changed. i see mission changing, but it

is good to keep those memories the way the city was built, you know? that is how i see it. and also, it is very important to keep the culture, and also to seek buildings that are more needed. that's what i think. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is wendy. i am a long-term resident of the mission area. i wanted to speak to the psychological impact of the displacement in the mission and the cause and effect that we see when these market rate buildings are built on our businesses, on our community anchors, i know i moved to the mission because it was affordable when i moved there. i raise my family there. i buried my mom there. you know, there is so many

people, and so many places that i have had to say goodbye to advance the cause and effect is just so clear, and it's like, people were moving out of the neighborhood, and then they were moving to oakland, and then they started building more luxury housing in oakland, and then they had to move to richmond, and then same thing happens they are. i mean we've been seeing dennis cause and effect over and over. i got evicted early on. i was one of the lucky ones. my neighbor who is a teacher got evicted. we both moved down the street, and then she got evicted again. replace is an -- rental unit now. it is just a relentless. this project does sit in the middle of many of our community anchors. it is beside the school which is really important.

there is the cultural center, the library, we really need -- none of the people who have lived here are going to move into that building. the density, let's look to who we are serving. let's look at amr and, like, what that is taking into -- what kind of incomes that is taking into consideration because it has not serving the people that we are displacing. it is so sad. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm the executive director of. [speaking foreign language] it is right across the street. one of the things i believe it is a board needs to take a stand on making sure that this area has health protections. there are children right next door. we just heard a couple of people speak to, not only the

potential, but research, understanding about the impact and their health. and it is our responsibility as public institutions and, you know, people who are doing this work in the city, to ensure that the public is safe. i also think -- the independent third-party study, in my mind becomes essential. that would be required of anything that is done there. my preference is affordable housing. i expressed that to the gentleman who owns that building quite a while ago. and he has his plans, and his ideas, and i have my ideas. in any case, make sure that these children are protected. the other thing i want to speak to is the gentrification. one thing that we often underestimate is the whole environment is impacted by gentrification. i have seen neighborhood over neighborhood where what used to be joyful music, food, cultural

events, suddenly becomes a police incident. suddenly we get calls about how those people make so much noise. their children make so much noise. and that is damaging to us, in a psychological and spiritual level. it is also unacceptable. it is a violation of our rights. i'm asking the board to be bold, and, you know, move forward on this appeal so we can all go back to really creating a setting in san francisco that is about families first. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> first of all, this building is supposed to be demolished. it is 5,200 square feet. you have it listed here is one story. it is a historical building that

is supposedly called chase bank. it was built during that timeframe that united states -- it is located on fifth between mission and market street. if any kind of construction that should be done in that area, for hispanic, mexican or latino dispensed -- dissent, it should be the renovation on the inside of that building to keep that historical building living in that area, and by the same response, and side of that building should be converted to family units for people who originate in the mission district. and about the additional 6,400 square feet of the land that is considered to be a parking lot, i move -- i moved that it should be incorporated as an extension of the school that is right next to it. the classrooms, the school that is in question is overcrowded, and i just got that input from the people who are standing in line who have kids that go there and to have friends who attend the school.

moreover, as far as the gentrification, it is not the true and correct word that should be used when this type of activity is performed. it is discrimination based on geographical location and you are always targeting minorities with this type of situation. never takes place in an area that is predominantly white. we fit it into the area where i grew up in the fillmore and it is not fair. [applause] about another example, when you do convert it to a family unit, you take the income of the people that is in the area, and make the income requirements at the income rates of the people that's working and living in the area so you won't outpace them. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm a community member. i live on the cusp of burnell and mission. i live five blocks away from

this development. i see my community change before my eyes every time i walk through the mission. there's something different about my community. this is more than just children having to play in the sun. this is about who we are building for, and where do we see the future of san francisco? who are we building for? we are over here and fighting for century city is, against luxury housing. we are fighting for the very thing that made san francisco san francisco. and to get these newcomers come, newcomer comes and they have everything at their reach. they have bars, fancy gems, direct transportation to downtown, they have their nightlife. who are rebuilding for? i think children should be our priority. the future of the city should be our priority and we should take their education and development into account. their health into account.

what is the repercussions of these buildings for our children and for our future? i ask that these third-party study should be considered independently from the planning department, and i also think that the health risks should also be considered when approving these developments. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm a retired family practice medical doctor. had my practice evolved into holistic medicines. i have the privilege of living in the mission with my daughter, and being a live in grandfather to my five and a half year old grandson. he has attended school in this past year in transitional kindergarten. his first experience in a san francisco school system.

it was a very fine experience. most of the mornings, i was taking him to school and often picking him up after and going by public transit to get there. and it was a wonderful year at the school. i am concerned about the physical shadow of this new construction propose. i'm even more concerned about the psychological, psychospiritual shadow of this building. putting a huge eight story structure next to a preschool, and transitional kindergarten is inappropriate in my regard for the wonderful experience that my grandson had this past year. and looking into the future, i don't expect san francisco to

stay without change. i don't expect this particular subject understudy to stay without change. rather, i would like to see change that would bring truly affordable housing into the region, and would bring a sense of open environment and an enhancement of the experience of the children going to that school. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am born and raised in san francisco. i'm a family service specialist for the mission neighborhood centres. and i'm a member of. [speaking foreign language] whatever damage is done to these children will be irreversible. the need to get this done right is mandatory. while technically not covered by the ce qa, they deserved at the same opportunities to grow and

develop. more than that, is acknowledged by planning, that schoolyard project is working to enrolled all of the public schools so every child and family can have a clean and safe place to play and gather on weekends. already, nearly every third of public schools are in this program. us -- the sight is part of s.f. usd. it is not a question of if, but one. if no action is taken, forcing not only these children, but all s.f. children, we will be relying on the school's playground during the weekends and evenings. the mission is not just a place. it is a people. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is gary. and i am the president of the redstone labor temple association. we are the tenants of their building at 16th and cap. a lot of arts organizations and

nonprofits are in that building. i am also an s.i.u. member. and, you know, neither of these organizations have explicitly stated that they want, you know, the board to vote in favor of this appeal but i can say, in general, both organizations support the plaza 16 coalition and they understand the concept that there is overbuilding of market rate and luxury housing in the mission. so, you know, someone else mentioned that there's been a blue wave in the city. it is more like a green wave. it has been in this hard for quite some time with, you know, the money. and just the idea, you know, that there is enough market rate and luxury housing in the city, and when they build these projects, you know, you can picture how many times a day people will be calling the cops. whether it is 16th and mission or 25th and mission. they will be calling the cops

all day long because that is the way it goes. i live in the tenderloin and i see that all the time too. you know, i agreed that it would be, you know, environmentally and psychologically a big impact on the kids in the school. they could be calling the cops on the little kids, because they are dangerous. please vote and -- voted in favor. >> thank you for your comments. >> hello everybody. i am calling... we have a report in here from the san francisco taxi m.t.a. center. >> server, i'm pausing your time. this is not general public comment yet. that happens later in the evening. this is about... >> i'm sorry, i asked him to say

the public. >> can you come back? >> sure. we are four or five people. >> we are looking forward to hearing your public comment during general comment. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am standing here in solidarity with all those standing up to the continued glut of luxury housing being pushed into the mission. i want to you all to take a few seconds to think about being a kid in school. think about what parts you love to the most, think about running around in a sunlit prick -- playground. the way you use in which recess and access to safe and open play helps you develop. that sunshine and safety to play and learn is now becoming a privilege for the school children of this city. there are so many things that children should have the right

to, and sunshine is one of them. our city should not be a city with the profits of a millionaire are more important than a child's access to the sun. supervisors, i am uncomfortable as it is, these development proposals must be judged in the context of thousands of neighbours in the street. we are facing evictions. because whether you want to acknowledge or not, the continued reckless and irresponsible building of housing for the rich is leaving every day working people on the streets. we know this through study, whether it is the recent study that states the high cost of housing is driving up homelessness throughout the state, or through lived experience of living in the city during the recent housing production while it is happening alongside unconscionable increases in indexing and homelessness. regardless of how attractive and simple at the arguments maybe, building housing for rich people that too often stays vacant and which we have overbilled at 50% of what the eastern neighbor has

planned estimated does not lessen the plan for finding and keeping housing that is affordable for the rest of us. developer should not be asking for exceptions. they should be the first in line for a public hearing and a major study of their project to be able to see their impact. please support the appeal. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is david. i'm a long-time resident of this city. i'm a graduate of the university of san francisco. some of you may know me as a former director of the mexican museum. where i helped peter rodriguez found to the museum on folsom street in the early days. and i come here this afternoon in the spirit of the passing of my friends who many of you know. and so i ask you, leaders of the city to think, what would renee

have to say about the subject of gentrification? what would be the proper solutions with particular issue, which as you can see, there is a huge outpouring of public opinion. we must preserve the integrity and the identity of the mission district, and those of you who are informed will know what i mean by that. it talks about the roots of our culture that go beyond the period, which i knew and which i saw in the early 1970s were community arts organization sprang up in this country, and our city has been a leader in those efforts of creating a great public space for people to live and work. so your challenge is to do the right thing. the right thing means thinking about it gentrification and the displacement of people in our

community because of the economic factors which make this place great, but it comes with a cost. so you have to exercise your leadership now, and show us, as a group what you can do to solve this issue on this project. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. [speaking foreign language] to. >> my name is francisco. our children are sacred. [speaking foreign language] ♪ our children are beautiful [speaking foreign language] ♪ our children are a gift [speaking foreign language] ♪ our children are sacred [speaking foreign language] since the 1980s, i remember we've been fighting in the mission.

the most dense community it used to be, density was a bad word back then and we've been fighting for a space to live. all of a sudden, here you the corporations comment all of a sudden there is space to live because it is causing our displacement. sisters, and brothers, you have the ability, each of you, as a supervisor is, as representatives, to defend our need to stay in the nation to flourish in the mission and we all need shadows. san francisco does not want to be manhattan. how many times do we have to say it? we will continue to say it. we don't need eight story or a ten story, nothing of these towers. we don't need the shadows. we need this son that gives us help for our children and our families. we need you to do the process that is very needed.

to do the right studies and to stop this displacement. >> grassi is francisco. next speaker, please. >> hello my name is marie. i have a question. why is it okay to block, to put shadows in schoolyards, but it is illegal in parks? it makes no sense. and another question is, how do we know the light study that was done was done by a company that was reputable and not one that was on suspension? oh,, like the project in hunter's point, and the shipyard, and treasure island. i think that the planning department needs to do their own due diligence and have another study, but it also, when companies come before you and they'd turn in their own

studies, you need to check with engineering to make sure the companies that are doing these studies are not on suspension, because unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hire a company that is on suspension, and turn -- have him do a study that is in your favor, and who he is turning it into, doesn't bother to look. when this project came before the planning commission, there was a planning commissioner, thank god he is not on the commission anymore, who said that, perhaps, what we were talking about displacement, and he said, perhaps all the little people should just moved to oakland. maybe san francisco is just too expensive. they are not a good fit here. the last thing i would like to say is everybody is really

wringing their hands over this whole -- over the children that are being put in cages and being housed at the border. it is unbelievable, i want to say, put up or shut up. this is your turn to do something for kids. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. neck speaker, please. [applause] >> the political season is over and i guess we will forget about the new directions. we are all going to go to. we have a monoculture that we are building for, just like mcdonald's potatoes. community favourite, or is this development favourite, development includes city taxes. we will get wealthy on taxes. as a construction, it will be a

disaster. moths, rats will fly all over the place. when they pour concrete, it curious, and the cure is a dust. if you, you can get it very easy and it can go into your lungs and it is a disaster. how many local residents are going to be involved or moving into this? will there be any seniors? will there be any homeless, any graduates of gap -- navigation centres? dignity homes i can help our community ameliorate, which is a big word. i don't think i've ever used that. i mean, we can help our community table a healthy equilibrium that invites newcomers and keeps our cultures together. i'm running out of time. i'm running out of words to say. i have plenty of time. the clock must be going slow.

thank you. again, it is a new direction. at this is a time to establish it. we need a healthy community. thank you. and the healthy community needs to take part of our local people that are less fortunate than us. section eight, as i said before. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors, these are the times that each of us must arise encourage, resourcefulness and excellence, to counteract the terror of a rising facet -- fascism. we are horrified about how people seeking asylum i being treated as criminals and separated from their children. the people speaking today recognize that the mission is historically a latino cultural district like the people coming

across our borders today. now you have listened to our community give clear evidence that this project will harm our children right here in san francisco. we cannot tolerate the same pathetic, logically explained the rhetoric about reasonable mitigations. when you respond, we want to hear you reply specifically to what you have heard. and respect for the intense research and heartfelt emotions expressed by the people who live and work here and love this city. supervisors, today you have said you feel helpless and appalled by what is happening on the federal level. you are not helpless in this situation. if you fail to support the community in their honourable plea to prevent harm to our children, your hypocrisy will be glaringly obvious, and the words you spoke earlier will ring hollow and meaningless. act with integrity. do what is it within your reach,

and do it now. >> thank you for your comments. neck speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i have been living in the mission with my family since 1928. this development is going to cause hazards for the children at the school during construction and should be mitigated. ignores -- noise, vibrations and poor air quality. these children have special needs and they need to be protected. their ability to learn will be diminished. public school should be including valid shadow studies. children spend more time in schoolyards in public parks and should require higher student -- scrutiny. the study should be done by an independent third party and not be tied to get a nonbiased report. the school is right next door to this huge development and will have a negative effect on the kids. if these were your kids, you

would need to make sure these studies are done properly and openly to make sure these young children will not be affected now or in the future. this could affect enrolment of the school in the future. please do the right thing. they are our future. >> thank you. comments. neck speaker, please. >> i am speaking generally in favor of the appellant. i think they are on at -- in a time of dramatic change. the world is changing. that which we value is changing right as we sit here. we are going through a change that is every bit as amazing and significant as that that happened on june 19th, 1865, you know, we had one side of our political spectrum that is, you know, going off the rails. and so, you know, it is not going to be easy. events will be painful.

like the ones we are experiencing now. i think for all of you, doing this job that you are doing here is as important as any other thing you could be doing. may be we don't have enough people right now to completely, you know, carried the day, that has always been -- i'm from the tenderloin, and that's how it has always been there. we never have enough. someone says may come in and we need a new twitter community. where will you get the people from? we are all already on committe committees. there are two words that have been murdered, twisted and malevolent on this board the whole time i've been watching. those words are growth and development. i think it's wonderful we have people here today who understand the meaning of the words growth and development. i hope this whole board comes to understand how we should really be using these words. >> thank you for your comments. before the neck speaker, are there any other members of the public you would like to speak on behalf of the appellant? [please standby for captioner

switch]

it is not like expecting shadows which we can't put a shadow over a park, but schools are perhaps more important for shadow issues because that is our children and 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