investigations i don't know if that is thorough adequate and complete if you want to respond to that. i am not familiar with whatever case you are citing. >> i think if i remember the case that you are citing, that was that traffic impacts are not covered, but i will leave it to the attorneys. >> victoria wong. the case she referring to is

california industry association versus bay area air quality management 2015 supreme court case. that case addressed the question of whether an agency is subject to sequa. if they are required to analyze the impact. the court held that agencies are not generally required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future. if the proposed project risks exacerbating those pre-existing environmental hazards or conditions they must analyze the impact of the hazards on the future residents or users.

the principal is that it requires analysis of the project impact on the environment as opposed to the environment impact on the project. >> let me try a hypothetical for you if you there are professional that write and talk about this. if the weight of construction could exacerbate earthquake fault activity, would that not then require further analysis under sequa? >> if there were information that the project would exacerbate an existing hazard, yes that should be address you had. that wouldn't be with regard to exist u existing buildings but new construction. >> no argument there.

>> that is it for now. >> we feel confident the new construction our new development won't increase our danger or hazards to residents and workers seismically? >> that is what the e.i.r. finds the plan itself would not. another hypothetical a consequent development project comes in under the soma plan that require us a specific analysis with a technical report to analyze the very specific circumstances and if that project were to be found to result in increased hazard that would trigger further environmental review through

e.i.r. or mitigated negative declaration. >> can you explain that so we understand the e.i.r. four the area plan versus youved projects to -- individual projects to follow. there is confusion if we approve the e.i.r. today it is wholesale approval of everything in the plan. people won't be able to oppose on provide comments to individual projects that they are concerned with with in the central soma plan. >> yes, the e.i.r. in the beginning of the draft it talks about intended uses of e.i.r. aside from projects qualify you had as housing sustain ability district receiving approval all other projects reliant on the central soma plan are required to undergo their own project specific analysis, they would be compared against the

findings in the e.i.r. if that would result in new significant impacts, any site specific impacts associated with that project then those projects are required to do their own mitigated negative declaration our e.i.r. >> there is a perception this e.i.r. is approving all of the individual projects within the plan. what are we approving today if we certify this e.i.r.? >> generally if you approve the e.i.r. and the plan you are approving the zoning map. >> we are not approving. the environmental study. what aspect of the plan are we in essence certifying the environmental study for if we

certify the e.i.r. today? >> is that question clear? >> if each project was in the plan requires its own environmental analysis what is the e.i.r. we are approving today? >> the zoning. you are approving the change in zoning. allowable uses as well as the height. that is the short version of that. >> consumif this board decides e more house nugth housing and exd the house you go in the current plan what would happen? >> so each specific project would be evaluated and determined to -- through that evaluation we look at whether or

not it would result in any new significant impact. whether or not the amount of housing versus jobs that we projected would occur in the e.i.r. happens as we projected or if the balance shifts to more housing versus less jobs, what we are analyzing the environmental effects of those. there is no cap on the amount of housing units or job growth, but what we are analyzing is the environmental effect from that. >> if we certify it is complete and adequate but we decide as a need for the city we need to build more house you go in this plan, not because you have environmental impact but because of the policy goal of the city we want to build more house you go. this e.i.r. studied a max number of house you go within the

central soma plan. if over time project by project the board started approving significantly more house you go than studied under this what would occur? >> each project would under go environmental analysis. it would be compared to impact of the plan. if it is within the plan level e.i.r., no further analysis is done. if we have reason to believe there would be new significant cumulative impacts due to the nature of the build out those projects would require additional environmental review. >> there is flexibility four the board to significantly increase house you go in this plan? i am seeing disagreement.

i want to clarify the questions. i realize i am asking questions about the plan versus the e.i.r. before us today which the board is determines whether it wants to certify or return to the planning department. because so up of the comment which was so appropriate and thoughtful is about the plan itself, i think it is important what the board of supervisors is doing with the e.i.r. i am interested in increasing housing within the central sole maplan. it made you sense years ago in view you have the time it takes it feels outdated today. that doesn't speak to the e.i.r. before us but to the plan itself. if the board in the wisdom and planning commission decide you had to add housing to the

central soma plan, would we be able to beyond the number studied in the e.i.r. project by project? >> we would have to analyze those changes to the plan and we would have to determine whether they fit within the e.i.r. and we would do an addendum. if they don't fit within the impact we would have to do supplemental e.i.r. >> after we hear public comment on that i have a number of asks for the planning department for that not related to the completeness of the e.i.r. but the plan itself. from is a lot of work to do to make sure the plan is right four the residents here in san francisco. my last set of questions and i see our colleagues with questions as well. the housing sustainabilities

district is up for a reason why the e.i.r. is not complete. it came later down the road not studied as part of environmental impact. would you respond. >> we give response to this in the original appeal response. to summarize. 8073 was adopted and effective january of this year to allow to city to establish the housing sustainabilities district. it was appropriate to add this to the e.i.r. and during the response because the sustainabilities district does not change the physical parameters of the plan, height, bulk, density. it does not change the if i i callen -- physical environmental

effects and is appropriate to add to the e.i.r. >> we have questions from other colleagues. >> supervisor fewer. >> i have a clarification. i think you said the measure that you are using to the job to housing ratio is lower than existing level than the existing level now. your measure is really this point in time are jobs to housing ratio and whether it is above the current level or below the current level i is that correct? >> we study the impact against the baseline existing conditions at the time, and that is why we come paired the plan's -- compared the plan with the

existing conditions. >> if we were to say the existing condition is unacceptable and we are still using that as measure, then we might say as in relation to what supervisor kim is saying the job to housing ratio is not where we want it. if we were to say at this time and place in san francisco we think the job to housing ratio is skewed and not correct, it seems as though we are using this measure to keep us at the same level of being unacceptable or not desirable. yet that is the measure we are using, and must we use that measure our do we ever in -- i am sorry i am so new to this and asking these questions.

are we able within the guidelines to look at aspirational levels of job to housing ratio? >> supervisor fewer, i want to clarify, we responded to the concerns about the job housing balance in relation to the concerns brought up by the appellants regarding gentrification and displacement. those are not generally addressed unless they can be related to physical environmental effect. we find no physical environmental effects are from plan. that is a policy consideration. not studied in th the sequa. >> the measure you are using is jobs to housing ratio we rently have -- we presently have and if

it is lower than the current job to housing ratio is that a correct statement? >> that is that is athat is a pt a sequa concern. >> that is what you looked at. >> no that is what we responded to in response to comments. the specific criteria in g is whether or not the plan or project would induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly through extension of roads, displacing housing units and construction every placement housing, essentially what is the environmental effect of that. >> what you found this plan you would not -- it is lower than the existing level of jobs to housing ratio. >> can i respond, supervisor

fewer? through the chair? >> supervisor kim. >> i think i understand supervisor fewer's question. the e.i.r. studies the impact of the number you have jobs or housing that is part of the plan. however, i think what you are asks is whether the balance is correct. that is not something the environmental study would address. that is a policy link. if we determine the jobs to housing balance was not the right one, we can make those change us in the plan. the e.i.r. would not address the housing balance per se. there is, of course, i if we dot build enough housing we increase the residents commuting to the city that has environmental impact. that doesn't propose what the

appropriate jobs housing balance is. >> that is the role of this policy body and planning commission. >> it recognizes a standard level? >> no. >> i heard the job to housing ratio is lower than existing level and it is not above current levels. i wrote that down from you what you said. my question is that correct then? >> supervisor fewer, that is what we state understand the appeal response. it is not related to sequa. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor row nan. >> i want to go back to the issue of the tnc on the vehicle miles traveled. i heard from the planning department there is not enough

data. i have two questions. i can't remember the times of the last appeal when you said there wasn't enough data. perhaps since then there was a pretty extensive study done by the transportation authority on tnc, uber and lyft and the frequency in san francisco. i wonder if you looked at that in relation to e.i.r. i will ask that question first. >> if i got the question correct, it is basically you are asking if the transportation authority did a study, collected more data? >> no. we have heard in several appeals that you don't have data on the impact or the quantity of uber

and lyft in san francisco, therefore, it is impossible to study the impact on vehicle miles traveled in an environmental review. i have heard that before. i heard it today. i couldn't find the study right now. we had antics extensive studies that took a look at these questions and had significant data. i wonder if you reviewed that report and data in the e.i.r. and whether or not that was studied. all we have heard from the planning department for quite some time there is no data, therefore, you can't possibly understand its impact. therefore, you don't even ask the question. >> great question. we have actually been working

collaboratively with the transportation authority on these studies with regard to tncs. the city is in a process of collecting as much data and information as they. with regard to the criteria. we know they produce the emt. per capita metric is population. if it increases and the per capita is still low. we are stating in terms of for the soma area it might go up because if cars and tncs. effectively the population will go up as well. people walking and all you have that would be part of the group and effectively would lower the emt per capita metric.

to address the question about the transportation study about tnc today, what they studied was within the san francisco you area whereas what we are actually analyzing is the sf chat model. it is -- i don't know the acronym. it is a model that takes into account every trip within the region. while the transportation authority has collected more information within the city travel we can't compare to what we have studied which is more robust. we looked at it from a regional perspective for this analysis. >> under sequa, if you have data showing the impact of the plan will attract more vehicles,

driving through and idling in the neighborhood, and that has an impact on air quality that impacts the residents you can't take any you have that into consideration when discussing mitigation our analyzing the environmental impact. >> we have taken that into consideration. the emt is a metric. what is in the e.i.r. is we are basically saying between 2005 and 2040 which we get the metric from the transportation authority model which incorporates the data they are collecting as well, basically, the difference between 2005 to 2040, emt per capita is going down for soma. we are actually study you go, you know, the impact of tnc as

well to the extent it is related in the model. >> i find this very confusing. >> i could answer the question if the e.i.r. considered the study. we does provide a comprehensive analysis in the response to comments regarding all of the available literature published to date regarding the tnc subsequent t publication of the response to comment, the california utilities company, tpc put out a report. they regulate tnc. they put out a router in april the underlying finding is the overall effect of tncs on bmt

is ambiguous and additional studies are necessary. that is the latest literature available to date. >> i don't want to take too much time. i am struggling to understand how the impact of the vehicle of additional checks coming to a neighborhood and emitting, you know, the toxic chemicals and how they impact air quality is studied under sequa. what i hear is because it is the metric you use is based on population, not based on reality of commuting patterns and the type of transportation that is actually used in the city that we really don't know. we don't know.

i guess, okay, my final question is understanding the impact requireds or the method you use? does my question make sense? >> it does. it requires that we study the environmental effects based on substantial evidence. what we are seeing we do not have substantial evidence to support that tncs are having a significant impact on the emt. >> because you are using the vehicle per person metric? >> you not because you have the metric. it is not the study about the effects of tnc on the emt.

>> during did you publictum they referred to healthy development measurement tool. did we use that tool and if we didn't why wasn't it used as part of the study? >> supervisor fewer, we do not use the healthy development measurement tool as part of the seequa analysis, we have specific criteria that is not in line with thanks however, the plan was evaluated against the healthy measurement tool which the name is different sustainabilities community index. it was against that. the report has been at the

planning defendant website since 202-0130 -- 2013 separate from the review. >> supervisor fewer do you have a follow-up question? >> i think my question was why wasn't it used as part of the study? that was the second part of the question. >> planning. >> we look at a number of topics required under sequa. those need supported by substantial evidence. we do not use that tool to substantiate our conclusions in the documents. >> is it because it is not substantial evidence? is that what you are saying?

>> to add on to what jessica was saying, she noted that we actually did use the healthy development measurement tool as policy tool on the plan process. the tool came out of the eastern tools planning process. it is related to land use policy issues of this type. in the spirit of that process we did engage to dpa early on in the development of the plan and we came to them and asked them to essentially run the initial plan proposals through the hd hdmtmetrics to provide feedback how it would impact health. as jessica noted that is on our website for a number of years we are happy to provide you with that as well.

>> supervisor year does that bring you -- super visor fewer does that bring you clarity. >> would you like to move to public comment? we are going to move to public comment at this time. please line up. if you would like to comment on this. >> can you clarify who can speak at this public comment? >> before we go to public comment i want to make sure there are no real party interests to present at this time. i don't see anyone moving to the microphone. >> well, if the supervisors wish planning staff was prepared to give a presentation as project

sponsor on the plan. >> that wasn't your presentation? >> there was a presentation from environmental staff on the appeal. >> i think it is important to get that presentation actually. >> you will have 10 minutes. i thought it was a combined presentation. good evening, supervisors. the planning department again. if i could get the overhead.

my presentation will reinforce the questions and responses that you have heard already. i am going to talk about the central soma plan and why it is a positive step forward for the city four key areas. land use context, transportation, environmental sustainability and health and community development. first i will provide an overview of the plan. you are quite familiar with it. enthusiasm is the plan area around the new central subway line on fourth street to create a sustainable neighborhood in all sense of the word. what this means building on what is great about soma. diversity and people and services, rich network of arts and cultural organizations. payment it seek to address what is not so great. unaffordable housing, streets with fast moving traffic unsafe,

lack of parks and open spaces. coupled with these challenges is industrial zones with not enough funding to address these needs. here are the eight goals of the plan. i am not going over them. they are design with the philosophy. generate new development and leverage that to build on what is great about sona while adding new infrastructure and services. this shows the magnitude of growth. existing conditions. this slide shows planned growth. the plan would allow space four 320-0500 new jobs. -- 16 million square feet of development. this growth is what will allow us to fund did you significant

community benefits. if the plan does not pass we will see growth half a billion dollars in funding. the plan will take it to $2 billion over 25 years with 1 billion-dollar this is tax revenues. this is shaped over the last seven years. dozens of public events and hearings, including 15 planning commission and hearings at the board. next part is the benefits the plan will bring to the city. i will talk about four topics. transited oriented development. while central soma is the neighborhood and how this is a sustainable system. how this will maximize parks and green buildings and how it

addresses affordable housing and cultural needs. central soma is what planne planners called transit orient oriented. dense mixed neighborhood in a location served by transit. california acknowledged this is critical when it passed 375 in 2008. sp374 set the requirements four planned bay area, the regional transportation plan. transit oriented development helps limit urban sprawl and essential to reducing greenhouse gases. lower per assumption of resources and more services since it is less closely to serve. it lead to better access to jobs, housing and services particularly for low income you populations. it contributes to improved

public health and improving environmental sustainabilities. they provide space for jobs not just office but indus stream and retail and other sectors. they have critiqued the plan i want to explain why this is pour. research shows that this is the most effective way to reduce the vehicle miles traveled. further we need more office space to relieve pressure on the office market. to ensure we enhance the city economic diversity. office vacancy rates in san francisco are at historic lows keying out nonprofits. if we don't build space for jobs with other transit served cities like oakland and san jose. it will get built in suburban

office sparks with the environmental impacts. central soma provides significant new housing. 8600 new units. this is 20% more than the 2016 draft program. it provides more housing than the high rise plans. in terms of space it has more capacity for housing versus jobs 9.5 million for housing 6.5 million square feet for jobs. the city as a whole is doing its part to provide housing. we are planning to create capacity for 143,000 unit in the city which will create housing for approximately 190,000 workers. this number is higher than the amount of new jobs we anticipate over this period which is between 150,000 to 170,000 new

jobs. san francisco will be one of the only counties adding more housing than jobs in the longer term. this density will leverage the significant investments in the transit sum. the plan area the near the rail yard where the caltrain line terminates which will be electrified. the plan will generate half-million dollars for additional local and regional transportation structure and $100 million for complete streets on all of the major roadways. these will be suitable for walking, biking and transit. in addition the area will leverages the transportation demand management program for alternative transportation modes. the combined effect means this is an area with sustainable

transportation where people will be able to travel without private vehicles. this has additional benefits for environment, traffic, safety and public health. it also striving to be ader by maximize -- leader. it will invest money on the streets and parks and breathing and air quality on the i-80 freeway that would benefit existing residents. buildings in the plan area will exceed the already ambitious requirements by using 100% greenhouse gas free electricity and green roof and solar panels. the last topic is what it is doing to address community development needs and specifically gentrification.

it is a loaded issue, one that cannot be solved in a single neighborhood. sole mawill achieve 33% affordable house you go the highest amount we have seen in san francisco. this amounts to 2800 affordable units, more than the existing number of rent controlled and affordable unit in the plan area today. this is a range of tools and stabilization of existing affordable and rent controlled housing. we have been working closely with the stakeholders to start identifying funding sources and specific opportunity sites for acquisition and rehab. there is a housing sustainability district to accelerate housing production. it will incentive to get those

sooner. finally, i want to highlight what it is doing to support community development. 60% or $1.3 billion will go directly to support affordable housing, social services, cultural preservation and pr businesses. central soma is providing funding for a broader range of community uses and benefits. the amount of funding in these categories have grown in regard to feedback. for all of these reasons it is a necessary step forward to bring premtuesday environmental and social benefits to the city. we are available four questions. thank you. >> thank you very much for your presentation. i want a brief announcement.

you i would like to make a motion to continue our second hearing on the agenda. this is a hearing for 43 for 46. the hearing now on the central soma plan will be another 45 minutes to an hour. i thought in order to be fair to the folks here for the following hearing we not keep them and we move the hearing to be october 2nd. we have no hearing at that particular time. does that seem agreeable? is there a motion? motion made -- i'm sorry. we will take public comment on the item but first i need the clerk to call the item and we will take a motion and then public comment whether or not to continue it. we will go back into the central

soma. i want to be courteous to those here for five and-a-half hours. >> 43 through 46 for a public hearing of persons interested in the certification of final environmental impact report at 700 and 900 the india basin open space. item 44 is to affirm and reverse the department certification and 46 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. >> we are going to open public comment on the fact that we are going to be continuing the india basin appeal to october 2nd. again this is a comment on just whether you like the fact we are going to continue or not continue. you will have another opportunity to speak on this

appeal when we hear the appeal. you may speak on the fact that we are going to have the continuance on that vote. mr. right are you going to speak? >> this works out good for me because i get to speak twice. >> only on the fact that we are going to continue the item. >> you are going to continue the item it results in me speaking twice. first of all, that side of the chamber is not credible. the way they demonstrated all of the test results pertaining to the shipyard at hunter's point and the treasure island, each and every one of that side you have the chamber talk about the statistics, professionalism and the guarantee test result us and all of them were unsupported. >> what does this have to do with the continuation?

>> the continuation related to what i am talking about. >> what is your point? >> i am getting to the point. i would like to restart my time. you interrupted me. the time you are waiting you should be given a second opinion from an outside professional thaw is affiliated with the federal government. okay? that health department from the local department of public health and the overall state dent of public health is not credible. you it is up there to make the same statements that everything is free and clear and able to handle a population, but yet people keep getting infected with cancer cause you go materials. the emissions that roy was asking about. the true and correct way to test the emissions from automobiles

exhausts needs to be from a small expert that tests discharges from automobiles to get a true correct measurement on the impurities with air pollution. about you when you were asking questions about how do you get your statistics? they were asking questions only to income people in high income brackets. you were not asking people who were infected. >> thank you. >> yo. >> i was supposed to present. i waited here for five hours. this is disrespectful to keep us here, call us at 3:00 and not give us a chance to speak. you have to respect people.

thank you. >> next speaker. for over 30 years i have been coming to the board of supervisorses. we had such instances where we were discussing about hunter's point. do you think that we, the people, would tolerate such nonsense? for example me? i have a brace. i stood out to say i should have said i have to sit down. i have to sit down. you see other people here who are suffering because they are sick, they come here to give testimony. you want to continue it because you think you have some power. i see the president has left the

chamber. because she doesn't have etiquette, no manners. this business of continuing this type of process comes from being inefficient. mr. green was here, if john gram was here. they would have performed better. a bunch of novices and a bush and wasting our time, five hours, now you want us to come on october 2nd or whatever date you choose to discuss the same nonsense. what i have heard today t to adjudicate the process of the e.i.r., not talking about cumulative impacts or things

like that, you are testing the public. the public are fed up with you. that is all i got to say. fed up with you. this whole process has been boring, boring. did you hear me? very, very boring. go home and think about it. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, i am speaking on behalf of a continuance, please, because ms. marie has been here for eight hours now. she has had to recharge oxygen twice and has had it plugged in. no food. drive back to stockton with limited vision. she is the appellate on this basin case. we are bordering on cruel

treatment at this point. thank you very much. i would love a vote of aye to our allies but we really need to go. >> thank yo thank you for your . next speaker. >> good evening. i am janice hunter on behalf of green action. i, too, appreciate you all continuing until next week. i am here as a sponsor for marie harrison. we will be sure she gets home safely. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am leo snodgrass. i agree with them to put it over to the second. i am here with marie harrison. mothers and fathers committee. >> next speaker, please.

>> i am roxanne blank. please hear us out today. i missed school, i missed a huge exam, we all missed work. no disrespect at all. i am sorry. i hate we have been here all day. please hear us out. we can't keep affording to miss work. we are working people. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am with the committee. i would like you to continue with this meeting. i want to add you make a motion to move the land use and transportation committee for october 2 at 1:30 p.m. and move to following date as well if you are moving this hearing. it is not fair to have us here twice for that as well. i ask a motion to move the land use and transportation forward a week. i believe it is on monday.

i think you should move that as women. >> for the record the item used in land used needs to be heard in land use. >> it is the same topic. >> sir, they are not the same. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am the general manager. we have lost a whole day of work today. cannot afford to lose work today. we would like to finish today if that is possible. >> next speaker. >> i am james fahey. i suggest we find out how many people want to speak and how long that would take. see if that makes sense. i think there are fewer people n here earlier. the group earlier was a very large number. is there away to see how many are going to speak? >> there is not, mr. fahey.

thank you. next speaker, please. >> aaron pierce. i am a resident speaking in favor of continuance. i want to suppress it is important for everybody to have the opportunity to speak. many people that were here for the next -- well for this agenda item have had to leave for a variety of reasons. many have been here for many hours. i don't think it would be a fair process for this agenda item if we don't continue it and don't allow the people here earlier but couldn't say their opportunity to speak. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> joe fox neighborhood association. we have been at this for over 20 years. it is a huge issue.

i would prefer that you vote yes on a continuance so we are all fresh and better thinking next week and it is possible if you could make it a hearing at a specific time. that would be probably beneficial four everyone involved. please vote yes, for the continuance. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> steve williams. i believe this is straight then you are saying our time doesn't matter. other people's heart ache and pain is more important. i have two kids. i had to take my kid here from oakland, back to his mom, come back, still nothing. it is just sad. it is sad.

now you want to continue everything and people have to eat and go to sleep and be up at 7:00 every day to take my kids to school, come back with my little one, go to work, do this and that. this is something. this is shenanigans. >> any other members of the public to address the board? public comment is closed. motion to continue to october 2nd. >> motion made by supervisor tang. seconded by mandelman. this motion passes unanimously. thank you. now we are going back to the previous hearing. just to recap. planning department made the

presentation. i don't know if you have questions for the planning department based on the central soma plan. supervisor fewer. >> i have one clarification. i asked all of the questions about the ear. i think that what i heard from plans is that. >> please clear the chamber quickly and quietly. >> i warrant to say that i know i asked the questions about e.i.r. and sequa. i was repeatedly told this is not the plan, that this is just the e.i.r., yet you just presented the plan to us.

i am a little confused. we are not voting. i just want to get this straight. we are not voting on this plan. we are voting today on the e.i.r. appeal. is that right? why are you presenting us with the plan? i don't get it? we are not vote on the plan. we are voting just on the appeal to the e.i.r. that has a certain parameter around it. i just wanted to state that i know i am a novice at this and i am just learning. it is confusing when i ask questions and then we say that will be address understand the plan and we are not vote on the plan. then you get up for 10 minutes and present the plan. i want to clarify to say that i

as a novice person and anyone listening out there, i apologize four taking up your time. i want to state that is in itself very confusing because i don't know why you had to present the plan. i just want to say that took 10 minutes. we are not voting on the plan. i am hearing we can make amendments to the plan later on. today it is just about the appeal and the four appeals to the e.i.r. thank you. >> thank you. i want to give the planning department the opportunity to talk about the correlation between the e.i.r. and the plan. >> i am lisa gibsoni would like to clarify for the record. today is a hearing on the to consider the appeals filed on the central soma e.i.r., not

a hearing to consider approval of the plan. the confusion is understandable. the board's procedures for e.i.r. appeals which i will state to the best of my knowledge and certainly did you clerk or others can correct me if i am wrong. it is typical in the process of these appeal hearings after hear from the appellant and members of the public that there is a opportunity four the planning defendant to present and the real party in interest can present what they wish to present in response to the issues raised and in this case the department has presented about the plan. my colleague can respond to that. >> i agree you you have a

private project sponsor if it was a development project that the planning department is the project sponsor so the quick overview of the plan is to provide additional context on the plan which is the subject you have th the e.i.r. to provie the additional information for the board in considering the e.i.r. >> at this time i would like to you invite the members of the public who want to speak in opposition. you have two minutes. we are looking for members of the public speaking in opposition of the appeal. first speaker come on up. >> okay.

i know everyone is so tired. i am jenny smith. i represent the construction employers comprised of 100 or so union building contractors in northern california. 25% of whom are san francisco based contractors. our members are the general contractors building the contracts enabled by the proposed central soma plan, multi family, affordable housing. among the members are the nippy brothers, clark construction. mccarthy, dome construction company, cahill contractors. planned construct comp