>> they are analyzing from a study done in 1980. it corrects to the impacts with 60 new absolute majority which

will be high income. adequate analysts of noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, emissions, emergency vehicle, access, pedestrian and bike safety are all dependent on the accurate realistic traffic projects. they should not be using outdated modeling and 2002 guidelines. i was part of the neighborhood plan when they were doing the redoing the heights years ago. we're in a whole new world. the reason we're having this problem and litigating what's not affordable and in this mess in the housing crises, because this neighborhood needs to be redone. the effects we're feeling from gentrification is at an all time

high. we need to revisit the neighborhood plans and take into all accounts. that doesn't seem to be getting done. this is where the crisis began. we need to start over. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you for your time. my name is kevin ortiz. as an early lead on this project, we understand what is actually negotiations. it was incredibly difficult to meet the sponsor team to get the discussion going around community benefits to mitigate the harms this project is creating and ensure that p.d.r. space will keep working place jobs. agreements includes rates for pdr space, guaranteed length of

time. yet there's no protection in this case if fitzgerald leaves or is bought out. it's teaching them to contributed to the displacement of their community. 60 units, yet 17.5% affordable. that's a joke. we fought for 25% minimum affordable as part of the action plan 2020. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors peter papadopoulos. i want to hit a few key outlines here which will frame a little

bit what we're hearing from other folks. the context -- we believe very much what is the equitable framework. we know that this project will add impact in certain ways. what happen are those impacts and have they beenaccounted for and mitigated. what will those potential mitigations be starting with the environmental. we saw this before -- i thinks cumulative issue.

we see it's significantly over including its affordable units by a whole 60ers. second the question is, is the e.i.r. accurate? i think here we can see that the t.n.c.s through the san francisco county transportation agency has truly taken a look at the impacts. we'll see the huge size of those impacts. if you see in vehicle miles traveled, which is the mode of analysis see, we see enormous increase of 47%, knock included anywhere in the peir. if we look at the federal reserve study, the recent study says for 1277 units of new housing we build, the price of one bedroom will drop $18 or for this project will drop by 85 cents. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public? please come down.

>> just to let you know -- this is in regards to the part of the housing implementation. >> sir, we can't hear you. maybe you can speak into the mic or turn up your voice. >> this is for the purpose of the housing and implementation of the united states code. this is the united states of america committee of judicial authority of rules. yo[indiscernible]

this is highly important. i want you all to understand something. i'm here and i've been here to reform this government. that's what we're going to do. if you keep pushing that button to deter me or anyone else on

reading, you don't belong here. just let me read this. >> thank you. time is up sir. your time isq up. are there any other members of the public that would like to comment and speak on behalf of the appellate? public comment of this portion is closed. i like to go on the record and correct something that i said earlier in my remarks. i want to restate that the purpose of the hearing is to evaluate of the community plan

exemption not to evaluate the eir. i want to correct that. planning department, are you ready? thank you. >> good afternoon president cohen and board members. justin horner planning department staff. i like to start knowledging public testimony today. concerns about public, safety and community benefit. some of the communities relate to environmental issues these are addressed in our field response. others relate to speaker support or opposition to the project. the merits of the project are not concerns related to the environmental appeal before the board today. our response only addresses whether the community plan exemption prepared for the project. the department recognizes the concerns around displacement and

gentrification. the department written appeal response provides a summary of various he wa efforts under wayo address the policy concerns. the project is consistent with the development density established by the easter neighborhood rezoning for which an environmental impact report or e.i.r. was certified. ceqa requires stream line review for some project. the preview must be focused on examining whether there's significant impacts from the project that were not anticipated in the prior easter neighborhood's eir. one of the main arguments made is that the department did conduct up to date analysis that considers the effects of changes in easter neighborhood and eir

was issue. we have performed new analysis to address these factors. as the eir disclosed, adoption of the rezoning would allow for a substantial increase in growth throughout the easter neighborhoods. with total increase of potentialousing supply about the 26,500 units. eir determined the growth would have significant impact on land use, shadow, noise and air quality. the question now under the streamline review is whether this project will result in environmental impacts that are new or more severe than those disclosed in the easter neighborhood eir. to address this question the department projected-analysises. for example, the transportation analysis uses the regional vehicle miles traveled

methodology a evaluates the projects under current condition and updated conditions for the year 2040. the cpe includes updated analysis of air quality, 14 house gas emissions and noise. the board has heard arguments of the easter neighborhood eir. three additional issues were raised by the appellate in the appeal letter. i will briefly address each. the first claim is that the ceqa finding did not take into account the potential impacts for the gentrification and displacement. the easter neighborhood's eir found in the rezone could have

secondary socioeconomic effects. those effects would not in turn lead to significant physical environmental impacts. at the direction of the board, the department prepared detailed analysis addressing gentrification and displacement as part of its responses to ceqa appeals for 2675folsom street. the second claim raised by the appellate is the cpe cannot rely on the easter neighborhood eir because the plan public benefits have not been adequately provided. the public pint -- there were no impacts identified in the eir a were determined to the less than

significant as a result of the adoption of the public benefits program. even if none of the elements of the public benefits program were implemented the conclusion reached by the eir will not change. the appellate claims that new information become available which requires new analysis. the appellate claims that the new information results in impacts related to transportation. each type of new information alleged by the appellate is address by the department written response. it's important to that the clarify dclaire -- from the rezd anticipated development under the plan. the board accepted these impacts and increased density throughout the easter neighborhood when it adopted the plan. as presented in the ceqa appeal responses traffic counts taken in 2016, 2017 and 2018 showed the traffic congestion is

generally the same or slightly less severe than anticipated in the easter neighborhood eir. earlier this month, the county transportation authority released a report about transportation network company and congestion. the transportation authority's report findings are consistent with the eir's conclusion there will be increase in traffic volume and congestion. as discussed above, recent travel counts which included transportation network company have not revealed an increase in congestion over and above what was expected in the easter neighborhood eir analysis. it is our view that the appellate is not demonstrated or provided evidence to support a claim that the cpe failed to confirm the requirement of ceqa. the planning department recommend that the board uphold the department ceqa determination and reject the appeal. that concludes the department

transportation. >> colleagues any questions? i have a few. mr. horner, if you can reiterate what we heard is that the methodology is old. the methodology that we using is old old and outdated. could you explain your rationale, you or someone else. i don't know. >> president cohen, the methodology that we heard from the public about today, 2002 guidelines that we do our transportation analysis with. we're in the process of updating those methodologies currently and we do have some preliminary results. that's getting updated in the next two months. we're releasing more reports.

but what we are seeing from the new methodology walk trips -- we heard about some motor-related questions and walk trips are increasing and drive trips are decreasing cellulit slightly. we don't actually see ther result effort eir actually being any different or impacts will be more severe. >> what's the reason you're updating that methodology? >> we're updating the methodology because we also recognize things are changing in the city. the eir did study vehicles in 2008. we are seeing that the number of

vehicular that the eir studied in 2008 was a lot more. it was more conservative than today. >> supervisor cohen: what other changes are you making to the methodology that you're using to evaluate projects? >> we're basically looking at every single aspect. we're looking at pedestrians, bicycles. we're looking at the travel demands. we're looking at loading, park parking, construction. every single transportation topic is being updated now. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. what if any, transportation impacts this area have you

considered -- sorry. recently, the transportation authority, this body, had a report that was submitted that took into account that quantified roughly, the impacts of tncs to neighborhoods. i was wondering if you had an opportunity to review that data and if you were able to talk little bit about the impacts of tnc? >> yes, we have had the opportunity to review that data. every single agency is working together. we are consistently talking to the transportation authority and mta and planning in the two agencies are actively involved in updating the way that we're looking at tnc and the way they are actually becoming more prominent in the city. there are other studies that

will be prepared. going back to the question of tnc and congestion. we did review the report. as justin mentioned in his presentation, we are seeing that the report consistent what the easter neighborhood eir said in terms of congestion. when we were analyzing for the impacts we used level of service. which is a measure of congestion. ta that's basically what're seeing now in terms of the eir projection. >> what about the impacts or the implementation of vision zero? the recommendations a vision zero made? does this particular project reflect the incorporation of

those recommendations? >> yes. this particular project actually -- we have a process by which every project actually go through team of inner city officials. this team is actually recommendingification thachangeo happen. >> supervisor cohen: , colleagues any other questions? seeing none, what i like to do now is call up him to speak up on behalf of the project sponsor. >> good afternoon president cohen on behalf of the project

sponsor. pursuant to administrative code chapter 31, i will limit my presentation to discussion of the merits of the ceqa appeal before this board and not the relatively policy decisions underlining the easter neighborhood rezoning. as detailed in the written material, the use of the cpe for this project is proper in all respects under ceqa. thappellate's issues are with te easter neighborhood's plannite and not ceqa or this project's environmental review. this is not the appropriate inventorvenue to raise those co. on the other hand, denial is consistent with past precedent when an easter neighborhood's project has no unique

environmental compatibilities. in upholding the appeal with threatening a significant number of housing units in pipeline or recently approved, that would similarly be expected to use the easter neighborhood's eir. ceqa's analysis is straightforward. i'm trying to translate into plain english. projects are not allowed undergo additional environmental review unless there's effects to the site or effects that are not analyzed related to the project in the eir. the cpe process is used to figure that out. this is not a rubber stamp process. it took almost three years for this project's background studies to be prepared and

analyzed and for the cpe to be issued. it relates to preservation, noise, transportation, general plan and zoning consistency, archaeology, green house gas, soil and hazards. none identified an effect. none of these documents are challenged by appellate either. as part of the cpe the project will prepare the following plan to be implemented during construction. archaeological testing, noise, treatment and site mitigation for ground stripping activity. it will be subject to the san francisco noise -- more

generally, the appeal does not allege any problems or defects with the cpe. the appeals written material hardly discussed this project. there are no projects specific issues identified by the appellate. the project does not cause any peculiar ceqa impacts. the appeal should be denied. ths appeal arguments from past appeals in easter neighborhoods. these arguments have been raised by opponent of market rate, mixed income and 100% affordable housing project. they are not new to this board. three recent examples provide direct precedent to deny this appeal. in february of 2017 this board did not grant an appeal.

a project appellate claimed easter neighborhood eir of fail and failed to address issues such as transportation, land use, growth, significant finding and impacts. those are similar to the claims raised today. this board rejected each of those grounds unanimously. more recently in october of last year, in save the hill versus city and county of san francisco, the san francisco superior court rejected a ceqa lawsuit filed by opponents of a 395-unit project at the base of the hill. relevant to this project, the court explained that a plan level eir does not have an expiration date and cpe is required.

exceeding growth forecast or suggesting a growth forecast may eventually be exceeded, does not render a cpe moot. instead, pursuant to the ceqa guidelines section 15183, evidence needs to be presented showing it will cause significant environmental effects that were not identified in the eir. simply pointing out the development patterns in easter neighborhoods have produced more housing and less office or other commercial uses is insufficient. finally, when this board did recently overturn cpe it identified project specific . this board overturned a cp earthquakebased on two adjacent schoolyards. the board unanimously concluded that the project cpe was adequate in all respects.

declining the same claims before you today about the adequacy of the easter neighborhood's eir or the use of cpe projects. finally, the easter neighborhood's eir continues to be important for the production of all types of new housing. in the mission alone, there are at least 193 units of affordable housing that are expected to rely on the easter neighborhood's eir. one of the 12 story density bonus project, and another project at 681 florida street. throughout the easter neighborhood plan in total, we estimate 19 or recently approved projects that can be in jeopardy affecting 1103 total housing

units all of which will include affordable units on site or off site. in summary, the appeal does not identify any projects specific peculiar ceqa. its issue relies with the easter neighborhood rezoning. one final point, the project is being entitled with 10,000 square feet of pdr. it cannot be converted to retail without public note. thank you very much for your time. >> supervisor cohen: seeing there are no name on the roster for questions, i want to invite the members of the public that

like to come up and speak in favor of this project. please come up and you'll have two minutes. welcome. >> i am the business property owner. i'm here to tell you we plan to stay long term. we support the plan. that's pretty much it. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. sir you already spoken. you're not able to speak. you're not able to speak because you spoke already in favor of the appeal. no.

we have to keep moving. you're not able to speak. this is for people that are speaking in opposition of the appeal. if you like to speak mr. otto? any other members? seeing none. public comment is closed. thank you. thank you for your comments. lastly i want to invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you have up to three minutes. come on down. >> we are here today to talk about the cpe. i think what you've heard is that additional studies are being done. but they're not in the cpe, telling us they're being done and that's okay it's not

sufficient. people wouldn't be standing on mission street protecting bike lanes with their bodies if we didn't have an issue that hasn't been study all these things have not been studied. saying that they are no impacts, you can't say there are no impacts. it hasn't been studied. that's the whole point here. the c.p.e. being tiered and eir outdated. no impact studied. the c.p.e. doing a checklist to utilize old data, old

methodologies, that's not study. the c.p.e. should not be upheld because these items have not been studied. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: any questions? thank you. this public hearing is closed. i want to thank the neighbors for coming. i want to thank the public commenters. this project create an opportunity for housing. i want to recognize supervisor ronen. i'm done. i'm complete. >> supervisor ronen: that's all you will say? >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> supervisor ronen: i wanted to say, first of all, i have so much respect. i wanted thank you for your really thorough,

thought-provoking presentation. the concerns that you bring up are so real and legitimate. this body has determined on several occasions that sadly, ceqa doesn't allow us to reject the environmental analysis stricklstrickly -- strictly on socioeconomic impacts. that link just hasn't been -- we can't find strong enough link there that would justify me upholding the appeal. i do understand that there are ongoing appeals of this project in other forms. from my office's conversation with the community, we understand that the biggest issue here is the long term affordability of the pdr space. it seems like there's at the

cusp of an agreement on that term that if fitzgerald plans to stay there, the community wants it in writing if it's future tenant. if they decide they will leave, it will be covered by the below market rate space there. i wanted to offer that i'm happy to be involved in discussions in the future for any other types of appeals. reaching that agreement. i do think it's so close. there's an agreement there to be reached. i wasn't prepared to make a motion since this project is not in my district. it's in district 10. it means a lot to my district because it's bordering the district. i'm happy to -- i don't know if you're going to make a motion supervisor cohen.

i couldn't find a reason to uphold this appeal under ceqa. >> supervisor cohen: you could not find -- thank you. colleaguwhat i was saying earlis is an opportunity for housing. in my discussions with the community that have expressed concern about the gentrification, the cost of pdr space, cost of the development of office space, the cost of just living in such a concentrated area. i'm incredibly sensitive to it. like you, i find these types of hearings are so uncomfortable it's not the correct tool to allow us the opportunity to really dig in. i am inspired to hear that the

planning department is studying -- will be making some changes to the easter neighborhood plan. is that where you're making the change? >> it's bakerly in the -- it's basically in the way we construct transportation. >> supervisor cohen: one thing that gives me little pause is that we're very close to your completion or the recommendations that you will be using. maybe you can walk me through the evaluation. once you complete your portion of the study, i would introduce an augmentation to the rules to evaluate transportation impact. that will go through the planning department, right? that will come to the full board of supervisors for a vote? it just goes to the planning

commission? >> it's just guidelines. >> supervisor cohen: okay. maybe you can describe to me how these enhanced guidelines -- what the process in getting them codified. >> president cohen, the procedures that and the methodology we use to evaluate environmental impacts are internal procedure. we have procedures that relate to analysis off environmental topics, that includes air quality which is a topic of discussion before this board. we have presented before to the planning commission about our transportation impact analysis guidelines update and methodology update. we'll be going before the planning commission again. the methodology is not codified. however, we're engaging with

consultants. we're seeking information and comments on these procedures. we'll accept that from anyone. there doesn't require an approval of that. i did want to note that just to correct something said earlier, there was a concern that these updated guidelines won't really -- don't really relate to the c.p.e. that it's not benefiting the analysis we did for this c.p.e. >> supervisor cohen: you're drilling down where i'm trying to understand. these suggested changes to the guidelines will or will not impact the c.p.e.? >> they won't impact the c.p.e. this is very technical. the point we're making the easter neighborhooeaster neighbr

stated it. there's actually more residential growth but there's much less nonresidential growth that's been happening in easter neighborhoods. the residential has less impacts. we overstate our methodology. we overstated impacts relative to what we know what the impacts will be. we're acknowledging that tncs are a higher percentage of carers out there on th -- cars t there on the streets. we're saying, the amount of cars that we said, the rezoning would generate it was overstated, we've done project level impact analysis and we've also looked at the methodology that we have updated. when we apply that, there aren't any new significant impacts. if we were to userd our current -- new methodology, we

have estimated fewer vehicle trips as a result of the easter neighborhood development. that's we'll be doing moving forward with future analysis. there's less vehicles that will be generated by new development going forward. it's fortunate in this case that we did overestimate this development because we have a change in the types of vehicles that are out there and other things and it provides a buffer for future projects like this one going through environmental review. we have mitigation measures. >> supervisor cohen: when are these guidelines will be completed? >> i'll pass that back -- >> supervisor cohen: before you pass that. let me finish with you. how do you quantify this overstatement of traffic impact? that means nothing to me.

help me understand. how do you know you overstated it. what's the baseline? what are the tools you're using to calculate this? >> we start with the development. the square footage of the individual uses in this case, pdr. we have factor factors that sayw many trips are generated by each dwelling unit. how many trips are generated by square foot for nonresidential development. those are those factors of trips generated. the factors that we have found base end on actua -- based on al studies shows those factors are lower. the other thing i want to say for easter neighborhoods we started withst mates how much development would occur with the rezoning that was our growth forecast. we did the best job we could at the time in 2008 when it was

certified to say how much growth would occur. there's slightly more residential that's occurring in easter neighborhoods. but there's much less nonresidential development. the factors how many trips get generated by nonresidential it's much higher trips, more car care generated by nonresidential. when you combine those things with the factors and also, you have less nonresidential development today. all of those things lead us to say we had overestimated the trip related effects. >> supervisor cohen: is there a specific number that you're saying? can you tell me? >> growth forecast changes compared to amount of development today, i think you're asking more about the factors for the transportation

analysis. >> i'm trying to understand the question president cohen. you're asking if what -- i can tell what we are seeing from the new data. we're seeing more number of people walking. we are seeing more people are using tncs. we are thinking that the uptim in tnc is reduction in people driving. we're seeing the overall drive share go down slightly. it depends what party of the city you're located. we actually did about 65 -- we went out there and studied 65 different locations throughout the city and asked preferences what the choices are. that's how we're updating our

trips.i want to add one more point. when we did apply the new trip rate to this project, we we're seeing it generate around 28 vehicle trips. basically showing that with the old guidelines we were overestimating. >> supervisor cohen: that's what i was trying to look for. i'm looking for numbers and data. i'm looking for you to quantify it. i heard words, i wanted to hear value. you shared that with me. colleagues i like to make a motion to improve item 32 and table items 33 and 34. i don't see any name on the roster. madam clerk please call the roll. >> we need a second.

>> supervisor cohen: seconded by supervisor tang. [roll call] there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. the final environment impact report is finally certified. thank you. madam clerk. next item. >> we can go back to item 22. it's --

>> supervisor cohen: colleagues, this requires an eight vote. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: i introduced this ordinance to extend to the reentry council. this is a body to the city and county of san francisco which i serve on as a representative from the board of supervisors. the unique thing about the counsel it brings together respective on criminal justice ranging from various law enforcement agencies to community advocates and incarcerated adults. i have learned so much there. i've been inspired to pursue criminal justice reform to make our city safer and compassionate. thank you to the rules committee to passing this. i hope i can count on all of you for your support extending the life of this collaborative public body that has been central in providing accountability for our criminal justice system and improving the

lives of those reentering the society after serving their time. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. colleagues same house same call? we can take that without objection. this resolution is adopted. >> number two 23, ordinance amending the campaign and government conduct code to update conflict of interest form. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. colleagues any discussion? seeing none. same house same call? this ordinance pass on the first reading. >> clerk: item number 24 is an ordinance amending the police code to extend by one year the possible duration of a cannabis

business permit. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor mandelman any remarks. we can take this same house same call? ordinance passed on the first reading. >> clerk: item number 25 a motion approving the president of the board of supervisors nomination to the board of appeals for a term ending july 1, 2022. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i want to first of all, it's not easy for me to vote against this candidate. i met with miss tanner.

this is a quasi judicial board. i want to know board of appeals which is an important body, for the first time, will not have one attorney sitting on the board and as i said to ms. tanner, only she is lacking is a law degree. when i was president of the board, i think i uniformly made sure that there were processes and i really am worried that the board appeals without having at least one attorney on that body. person who it leaving, ms. wilson is an attorney at law. i will not be voting for ms. tanner today. >> supervisor cohen: i want to acknowledge that supervisor peskin is correct. ms. wilson is leaving. she did a fantastic job. i have the one who nominated her

and fully vetted her. i nominated ms. tanner. i hope you will support her. she's in position to serve on seat two of board appeals. you should note that she has served as a senior planner for planning department and has worked for -- she's managed multimillion dollar capital projects and has familiarity with the san francisco planning code which i believe is an asset to enable her to hit the ground running for the first board of appeals meeting which is scheduled to be next week. currently, there are only one other woman, that's commissioner ann lazarus. she's serving on five member board of appeals. this is a young woman of color. she's bringing a fresh new perspective to the board of

appeal. i believe she will be able to adequately handle the duties as we see fit as a quasi judicial body. i don't have a law degree. the point that i'm making, we too, sit in a quasi judicial body and don't have the legal expertise that supervisor peskin is pointing out. she volunteers for the community in her spare time. i like to recognize supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i had to wrestle with this appointment. i served on the board of appeals 10 years ago. both board of supervisors appointees were lawyers. there's a dynamics where there's

split authority. i think that it is important that the folks who are appointed by the members of this board understand that they have a role in representing the neighborhoods that are represented by this board. i had a good conversation with ms. tanner. i think she is an excellent person with a lot to contribute. i did not get the sense with her that she had thought much about that dynamic. the other thing i would say about the board of appeals which has incredible authority over permits. sometimes has the ability to overturn and change decisions of the planning commission. it is an awesome responsibility. i have been troubled reviewing the decisions made by board of appeals. sort of overruling or changing decisions that the planning commission carefully wrestled

with. i think this is an appointment that will last a long time. we'll be dealing with decisions from board of appeals for a while. i share some of the concerns that supervisor peskin spoke to and some others as well. i will reluctantly be voting no. >> supervisor cohen: the appeals that you are concerned are actually, there are lawyers over there that are overturning these planning department appeals. supervisor ahsha safai. >> supervisor safai: i know she might not have a law degree, she has a masters in city planning. she worked for the planning department. i had the pleasure of having her work on my staff for a few months when i had a staffer go out on medical leave. i can tell you with full confidence that she will execute these responsibilities with

dutiful determination. about 90% of the board of appeals is a lot of small neighborhood appeals. supervisor mandelman. i think her understanding of the planning code and the development process, how city functions and how land use interacts with neighborhood decisions. she's a resident of the bay view. she's a long time city staff and has been involved in multiple activities. i couldn't think of a better person. i understand the desire. but it's not a requirement to have a law degree. i would say respectfully supervisor peskin if you no longer served on this body, i would feel confident someone that does not have a law degree you will be able to perform those duties well.

>> supervisor peskin: i think you would. we are charge in this body to put more women in these positions and having a body that has only one female on it and woman of color, this is an important decision. i feel like there might be other stuff going on. i hope that some folks would consider make the right decision and appoint ms. tanner to this body. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i wanted to echo that having msc requirements. one of the areas we struggled is having age diversity to the young woman. gender, diversity as well as ethnic diversity. i hope that that would factor into your considerations, in

your vote. -- let's call the roll. [roll call] >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next item. >> clerk: excuse me. item number 26 is a motion appointing josh wolf, leuwam

tesfai, bruce wolf, frank cannata and matthew yankee. to sunshine ordinance task force. >> supervisor cohen: we take roll call vote on this. [roll call] >> supervisor cohen: this motion is approved. next item. >> clerk: committee reports. items 35 and 36 considered by the land use and transportation committee. as a regular meeting, forwarded

as committee report. item 35 was recommended and is an ordinance amending general plan to incorporate the dogpatch plan. >> supervisor cohen: i'm excited to have this plan move forward. the dogpatch community has been experiencing tremendous growth over the definitely. the growth projections for the central water front can see a quadrupling of housing units between 2020 and 2030 or five times the number of people living in the area that we see there living today. this legislation, the dogpatch public plan, sets the guideline for city investment in neighborhood during the next 10 to 15 years. this plan will ensure that the neighborhood continues to grow and we're on the record for

committing to infrastructure for a transit first neighborhood complete streets that connect through new -- retaining and supporting pdr business and improving parks and open space for growing population. i wanted to acknowledge this has been a model for interagency coordination. i want to implemen compliment te involved. i want to recognize the neighborhood outreach and the level of involvement from the neighbors in the dogpatch neighborhood. it brings historicall historicat land uses. allows the community not only to coexist but ultimately setting them up to continue to