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 consider 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, as a readable piece of information. how can they possibly do a proper accumulative analysis? i want to go to the mitigations for the susceptible receptors which would be the school. i was just recently given a little blurb from a document saying that under berkeley hill's preservation, the city of berkeley, california supreme court state, that a potentially significant environmental effect may to be due to unusual circumstances, for exceptions to apply in borrowing from the guideline section.

unusual circumstances could be schools and-- >> thank you very much. >> after the hearing has been closed. >> okay. so, at this hearing has now been held and is now closed. this matter is in the hands of the board of supervisors. >> thank you so much. i want to address some of the public comment that i heard today on both sides of this issue. the people and the residents who came out from the mission, supporting this appeal, i just want to say, that i hear you. that the pain that's been caused

from the uneven development in the mission, up so much luxury housing, and so little affordable housing, has decimated the community and has changed it in ways that are unfair to low income and the latino community. i just want to recognize that, and i want to acknowledge that i work every day to try to mitigate the impacts of this rapid displacements, and really just, incredible change in the community, that is positive for some, but very, very destructive to the culture in the neighborhood, for many others, and mostly lower income folks. i just want to thank you for participating in the process. i want to thank you for fighting for your community. i want to say that i know that nobody is saying that newcomers

and change is not welcome. but what i often hear from you is that is inevitable in any city. but not when it pushes out and decimates a community that is already vibrant, and they are, and thriving. i just want to thank you all for participating in the project. for those who came out and talked about, you know, their opposition to the appeal, you know, i want to say that the mission community, perhaps more than any other community in this city, are the first to fight for and beg for, and scream for, and come up with a creative initiative, and push the safety to build as many, 100% affordable projects as you can possibly fit in one little neighborhood. the idea that this community thing, it is not true. in fact,, the term originated

because people didn't want affordable housing in their community. the mission is a complete opposite. they are saying build. they are saying build market rate housing, but when you build enough below market rate housing for the people that have lived in this neighborhood. i just want to say that this is not a community thing saying no to housing. there has been tons of development happening in the mission, and this community welcomes that development but wants enough of that housing for the people that have lived there. and so i think it's inaccurate to say that the activism in this neighborhood do not support housing or dense housing being built in this neighborhood. and then, secondly, i want to address this particular project. you know, i heard from tim cole and, you know, a travesty that is actually happening.

it is a very important tool that we have in the city, to ensure environmental impacts are mitigated. when development happens, and to say that that -- taking that law seriously, agile using that law to analyse impact is somehow misplaced. you know what i think is misplaced? is that they have no intention of building housing on this sight. he is exploiting the process for his own personal gain. he knows he can get more money by selling this property if it is entitled, then if it is not. he told me that on the phone. he has every intention of selling this property. he has no intention of building housing they are. let's be honest about that. let's be honest that this is about getting top dollar for a piece of property, and exploiting whatever process there is in order to do that. let's not pretend that somehow, by using the law to make sure

that the neighborhood is protected from environmental impacts is somehow an exploitation of the project, but what he is doing is not. and then, finally, i would say that i too believe that we need to build more housing all over the city. i believe the mission in district nine has taken a fair share of that need to, but we are willing to do more, especially when it is 100% affordable or a large portion of affordable housing. but we are going to make sure that the community is protected in the process. we are going to analyse all the environmental impacts on the project and we are going to fight for community benefits. and that is all what is under the law. i think that the majority of that review and this project was

sufficient but i find one area that it wasn't sufficient. that is particularly the area of the shadow impact on the two schoolyards. the intention of the shared schoolyard program, and the city and county of san francisco is that all schoolyards, all schoolyards will be become shared schoolyards and open to the public when school is out. and there has been, in my opinion, not enough analysis as to how the shadow of this impacts of this project will impact that public open space. and so, i am going to move to table item 36 and approve item 37 and 38 on the narrow issue of whether or not, of wanting additional study and analysis of

the shadow impact on the two projects. i'm sorry, the two schoolyards. that are impacted by the project. >> okay. she has made a motion to table item 36 and approve item 37 and 338 with specific findings. is there a second? seconded by supervisor peskin. please call the role. >> role mac -- [roll call] there

are 11 yes. >> the motion is approved. let's go to our next 3:00 pm special order. >> items 39 through 40 are the board of supervisors sitting at the committee as a whole. it was scheduled pursuant of the approval of a motion made during the meeting of june 12th, 2018. item 39 is a public hearing for the board to sit as a committee as a whole to consider the proposed ordinance which is a subject matter of item 40. calling and providing for a special election to be held on the city -- in the city on tuesday, november 6, 2018 for the purpose of submitting to the voters a proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the city and county of the amount of 425 million, to finance the strengthening and repair of the embarcadero seawall and other critical infrastructure and related costs necessary for the foregoing purposes. >> okay. , we are sitting as a committee

as a whole to discuss a proposed general obligation bonds for the seawall and related infrastructure. let's open this hearing. this item is now open for public comment on item number 39 or 40. you have up to two minutes, if any member of the public would like to comment on this item specifically. okay, seeing no public comment,. >> thank you supervisors. i am a board member of the san francisco legal -- league of conservation voters. we are an all volunteer organization whose mission is to promote environmental protection through active participation and political systems. we promote conservation and protection of natural resources, environmental justice and sustainability.

i'm here today on behalf of the san francisco league of conservations board and to support the bond measure to create a more sustainable and resilient waterfront. the seawall supports key utility networks and transportation infrastructure. for the munimobile, bart, very, bikes and pedestrian. this sea level will rise and we have climate change and possible damaging earthquakes. these are all immediate threats and risks to their promenade and our economy. rebuilding the seawall will help address this threat at hand. thank you for this opportunity to voice our support, to protect our environment and the san francisco waterfront. >> thank you for your comments. neck speaker, please. >> i am a northern market neighborhood. i am an activist. this project, as it is currently composed, if you are going to be

evidence-based and based on the evidence, the known evidence of the situation, this project is so grossly insufficient to meet the needs of the next 100 years. it is a joke. >> thank you neck speaker, please. >> recently i was watching educational shows pertaining to the high school ages in the area of geographical locations of places like alaska, and because of the global warming, it has been predicted that sea levels will rise within the next 10-15 years and a lot of flooding is going to take place, and a lot of property that is owned in the south, and also on shorelines will be flooded. so we need that wall to be reinforced, and raised up higher to be prepared for when this sea level rises because of all of

the melting of the ice where polar bears are located. this is a very important situation at a needs to be built. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public you would like to comment on these items? seeing then, public comment is now closed. this hearing has been held. all right. colleagues, on the item, madame clerk, please call the role. >> on item 40... [roll call] there are 11 yes. >> it passes unanimously on the

first meeting. madam clerk, please read public comment. >> at this time the public may address the entire board of supervisors for up to two minutes. you may speak about the may 15th board meeting minutes and item 43 on the adoption without reference to committee. public comment is not allowed to wear an item has been subject to public comment pursuant to the board rules. direct year marks the board as a whole and not to individual supervisors and not to the audience. if you like to display your document on the overhead projector, please clearly state that to us and remove the document when you would like the screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> for speaker, please. >> now is the time for big change to come about. we have a new mayor coming and we have a lot of business to take care of, and i want to open up by addressing the press meeting that took place in front

of city hall pertaining to the employment discrimination, and also discrimination in general against black people, african-american people. we started getting discriminated here in the city and county of san francisco during the year of 1964 when the civil rights act, that year, got put into effect by demonstrations and speeches that were made by dr martin luther king. discriminatory practice and tricking devices were applied to black people by justin herman. he did the ethnic cleansing of my nationality of the people of the film our area and as a result, 15% population a black people that existed in the fillmore area is down to two and a half-3.5% now. people outside of complaining about the difference of treatment that they are receiving, and even when we protest, we still have a low amount of people that are stressing how they are being on

the receiving end of discriminatory practices and tricking devices because of their skin colour. you have other nationalities or even joining in. very much so in the same manner that i come and speak up for other nationalities who are being violated. you watch me speak up for rape victims, you've watched me speak up for it's hispanics in the mission district and i spoke up for people who are at doing in-home care who haven't even been paid for services. now it is time for me to speak up more for my own nationality. i am moving to have a hearing pertaining to the ethnic cleansing in the fillmore area and i moved to have a hearing on the department of public health because of the amount of females that are black who have been discriminated in the health department. i can't believe the number of people who have complained about barb garcia. i want to hear it on both of those topics. >> thank you for your comments. neck speaker, please.