avenue and evans avenue, one block west of the third street corridor or. the plant was expanded to the current footprint in 1982 to comply with the 1972 federal community water act. next line, please. during this time, community members self organized to ensure that the city and the state would address social, economic and environmental impact of the treatment plant expansion. led by the big six,. the community successfully security mitigation agreement with the city in 1982. this agreement read, the construction of a commercial greenhouse and skilled training centre is a reasonable, necessary and appropriate means for mitigation of social and economic impacts associated with the proposed southeast plant

expansion. the agreement continue to states that the support of the bayview hunter's point citizens demonstrates their belief that these facilities are necessary and that they will satisfactorily mitigate the adverse social and economic impacts of the plant. the state water resources control board adopted it in 1982 and the city finished constructing the current southeast community facility at 1800 oakdale in 1984. the goal of the historic -- i'm sorry, the goal of that mitigation is the same today as it was back in the 1980s, which is to ensure we are providing residents from bayview 's hunters point with meaningful economic and workforce developments in a manner that is equitable and fully inclusive. at the request of community members and building tenants, we initiated a transparent community process in 2011 to assess the conditions of potential improvements of the southeast community facility and

to the greenhouses. this assessment concluded that the then 25-year-old building needed substantial physical improvements to improve programming. the s.f. p.u.c. and the southeast community facility commission and the community desired the complete renovations and two faces beginning with a smaller renovation to the swing before about just embarking on a night -- larger renovation. we completed phase one renovations in 2014 which enhanced the usability of the classrooms and also added administrative space. before we embarked on the face two, were reevaluated to determine overall cost, efficiency and the impact of the phase one improvements. this evaluation estimated the cost of phase two ranking between $35 million and $40 million. however, the renovation's impact would have been significantly impacted due to outdated plumbing and mechanical systems in the building, the confusing layout, the lack of natural

light, and key deficiencies in the overall building systems. in light of these facts, our agency embarked on a multi- strategy, nine month long, stakeholder engagement process to ask residents whether they wanted us to proceed with investing in oakdale are establishing and creating a new southeast community facility. our outreach to the community hinged on three key strategies. the first was grassroots outreach where we knocked on over 2400 doors, showed up at 20 community meetings and host attend community presentations to solicit resident feedback. the second was intentional community partnership with 16 organizations to host focus groups and youth. just to limit resident feedback. the loss was around social media where we engaged residents online and generating more than 26,000 social media impressions and also launched a website to be transparent with residents. an overwhelming majority of folks to be engaged with world

from bayview hunter's point and folks who had lived in the community for as long as the center existed. these residents were clear to the p.u.c. they wanted to build a new community center in the neighborhood. the southeast commission, as well as the p.u.c. commission and the citizen advisory commission adopted resolution supporting the outcome of the study. it was determined the outpost site for the facility was a parcel of land that our agency does own at 1550 evans. we initially purchased this in 2012 to consolidate staff operations that are currently spread across satellite offices in bayview. this is not a peep he his -- piece of surplus property. residents prefer this site for the new center because of its location. is acceptability to public transit and its prominence as a gateway to the bayview community to honour those residents, we made a commitment to construct and complete the facility at the site by 2021.

the key priorities for the center as articulated by residents in more than two dozen communities are before you right now. they asked for affordable space for nonprofits to provide services to residents, they want job training and career development, a hub for residents to connect, green open space which i will touch on in a second. expanded childcare because families in the neighborhood have access. and of course, they want us to remain committed to the spirit of the original mitigation. i want to know about how we engage with residents. we engaged authentically, collaboratively and openly to let the residents know it would be their idea and their feedback for the site. after multiple rounds of community readings and engagements with community centers to learn best practices, we defined these key components of a site. the community center that serves all of the accessible uses that

a community asked for, everything from cafés to expanded childcare center and multipurpose rooms for events. the second feature is the education building that will provide access to academic training programs to support career advancement into living wage jobs in our industry as well as others on the third is the activated open space which is critically important. it is a critically important feature that was desired by the residents given the limited edition limited green space in the neighborhood. each of these components ensures we continue to honor the legacy of the big set just big six and meet the objectives of the most direct mitigation which continue to live today and ensure bayview residents have access to economic academic justice opportunity that is equitable and inclusive. after six years of very active and transparent and engaging community process, i'm happy to present to you the plan which was approved by civic design

review last month. if you can give us a little bit more time, i would like to invite greta would give you an overview of the key site specifics. >> thank you. good afternoon. >> it shows the three-story community centre. the separate and adjacent alex picture event pavilion and on the lower right-hand corner, the proposed education building. as well, on the corner, the highly visible activated green space that david spoke to. it was very important to the community that this space not be hidden behind the building and that it's engendered the idea of public access and it would be receptive, welcoming and in a safe outdoor space. key community priorities for this green space include a small amphitheater for events, café seating, a public plaza, natural exercise features and activated players for children, family picnic areas, playground for the

children centre, childcare center and landscaped areas with walking paths. the design you just saw was informed by early concept designs that we propose to the community. many of those highly important components are shown here with precedent examples of outdoor event spaces, clauses, places to sit in green space and accommodating topography and play areas. the next shows you the same approach or we began early concept studies. it is important to the community of a large front porch. in elm and a canopy that expands from the key community building and the event space to provide shade, a clear indication of welcome, a place to gather and linger. additionally, there is an indoor and outdoor café that is open to the public and outdoor seating,

among other things along with public art. once we determine to this, we approached several approaches to the design. important features to the community where that we use pattern and texture on the front façade of the building and maintained views from the building out to the new green spaces. and that sustainability beef -- sustainability features be incorporated to meet sustainability goals. next line, please. here is a view of our proposed design from the prominent entrance along -- sorry. from the entrance to the site from third and evans. you can see on the left the community centre. the event space and supports that runs between them and the green traces and pathways between. you can also see an incorporation of those initial

ideas of patterns u. and sunshade and sustainability features. this is one image of our features within the outdoor activated space. this is a proposed play area that uses a natural topography as a berm along third street which allows for slides and climbing areas for children. finally, a view from the corner of third and evans showing the approved design for the commission and the civic design. >> thank you. that is all you have for the presentation, right crete we will open it up for public comment. i have a couple speaker cards. >> hello. i am the executive director. i'm the chairperson of south each -- southeast community

facility commission. like you folks, i sat through many meetings with a long line of public comment and speakers. over the past two years, we have had many meetings where we have had long lines like you have had today. almost 99.9% of the public comments that we had related to this issue were in favor of the new 1550 evans campus without housing. we looked at many designs included that incorporated housing and all of them is substantially altered the beautiful designs that were presented today. they ended up looking like prisons. they were terrible. the bayview has green space and parts in san francisco. this design that you saw will help change that. not only will those designs where they beautiful but as expressed today, they incorporated community input.

community meetings, when the designs were presented, options were presented. right there, the community had the opportunity to weigh in on which elements they favoured. the changes were made at incorporated into the designs you saw today. this was a very open and transparent process. we came here on march 29th of last year about the communities for housing but then spoke with john afterwards and he came and spoke to our commission and said that he was not aware of the open and transparent process that took place and all the community outreach that happened with 5,000 surveys completed by individuals and all the community outreach and 26,000 hits. he wasn't aware of all the meetings we had and he said that was significant to him. had he known that, for him housing would have not been part of that conversation.

we are so thrilled that president cohen is behind this project. we appreciate that support. we know there is a need for housing but there is also a great need for open community space and a beautiful design that has been presented. i would like to point out that the city honored the preference of the russian hill community a few years back with a 3.29 acre cart -- parcel of the city reservoir where community or the below market right housing was an option and it was taken off the table when the community spoke up and said they didn't want market rate or below market rate housing. they wanted green space. the residents of the bayview deserve the same. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is lottie and i am a bayview hunter's point resident.

housing is not a good use for this site. bayview residents strongly reject efforts to build housing at this location. any proposal for housing would be -- would not be in accordance with the existing legal mitigation between sfpuc and bayview residents. or the original vision put forth by the founders. time and time again, residence see examples of how formerly accepted public cultural practices such as family barbecues, amplifies traditional music and even lifting voices together in praise become subject to noise complaints and policy when housing is built they do not want this to be the case for the new southeast

community facility. i would like to thank you for how far you have listen to us with this whole situation going on with 1550. we come to you on several occasions and i just like to say thank you for your time and listening ear. i hope that you at the end of this, vote in our favor that no housing should be put there. we don't want any more housing put there. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is dorothy. i have been a resident of the bayview for over 30 years. i feel like the legacy of the current southeast community facility was rooted in the bayview for the environmental, social and economic justice.

the mitigation between the city and the bayview as a result from the willpower and self-determination of the people it has been too many times when the government broke its promise to its black and brown residents prohibiting residents of color from buying homes in certain areas. they did gentrification in the bayview and they failed to clean up the shipyard and continue to threaten the hundreds of bayview residents. bayview residents strongly reject the city's effort to build housing at this location. any proposed housing would not be in accordance with the existing legal mitigation between the s.f. p.u.c. and the bayview residents. please stop. give us what has already been promised to us. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello.

i am here representing -- we fully encourage the planning commission to adopt the recommendation to remove housing for a special use district. in addition to having education workforce development at the southeast facility, it was built for quality access childcare for the residents of bayview. it is a critical service by offering an early head start in the current facility and we serve 85% of bayview residents. high-quality childcare is really important for the optimal and physical development of all children. however, in the bayview hunter's point, it has the highest percentage of children in san francisco neighborhoods with about 6,000 people from 0-11, over 1,100 are potential children who could be served.

and with this community facility being built, it gives us the opportunity to provide these families and children this service. the interest of the children and the families that we could potentially serve. not only would it push back the bills, out also threaten the green space which we would potentially use for the children to be exposed to vegetation, the opportunity to be exposed to fresh air and be able to develop and change coordination and foster early coordination on the environment. also, adding housing can also bring about a lot of issues and concerns with having the shared use of space and the limitations of the housing next to a childcare facility. this is why we are urging you to approve this with modifications. thank you so much.

>> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is karen. i would like to strongly oppose the legislation for rezoning the site at 1550 evans. our commission and the residents i all like a plan and design that is for the community. but the business core door does not have any housing and is currently used as some light industry. and housing built would not blend in with the surrounding neighborhood.

furthermore, the bayview residents indicated that they don't want any housing at this site. the commission and p.u.c. -- also, this is a process. is almost the end -- know it is time to move forward instead of rezoning the site. i don't think this was a good idea to be rezoning at this moment. thank you very much. >> any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioner richard scree. >> we have further community several times on this. this has been going on for quite some time. having been on the other side of the railing and having language in that allows housing in the future, if i were in the community, i would feel that even though it is well-intentioned adjuster on the

president of the board of supervisors, i would feel like there could be a bait and switch in the future i would probably feel like someone is pulling a fast one on us. i would definitely support the recommendation to remove the language from the housing in the su d. >> i will disagree with you on that one. i think this is a big opportunity. i don't think we should be putting limits or parameters on what could happen. i don't have a problem with the project we just looked at. it is a nice design. but i think we should allow our newly elected supervisor to take this by the reins and steer this the way he sees fit as the newly elected supervisor of district ten. i want to make this the best project it could be. whether it is the addition of a grocery march or limited housing maybe it is a good time for the middle income housing that we

have still yet to see throughout the city. but i don't think that we should be restricting restricting this site and i am not in favor of the elimination of the housing. >> i agree with him on this one as well. i understand there has been a long community process. and also, i think we have seen dramatic changes in san francisco in the last 15 years and the most urgent one -- urgent one is the need for housing. this is not a specific proposal to put housing here. it is a zoning. it is creating a zoning regime that would allow it in the future if somebody can convince the community that it's a good process. so it is having, as you said, the circumstances under which

the new supervisor can usher through a project that could work for the community. if it doesn't work, if the project that involves housing takes away from the childcare or does something that is not open or accessible to the community, there is a response to the needs of the community, even with the preference for neighborhood preference or any of the things then, you know, i will not support it. but that has to come back as a project. right now we are talking about the zoning and i think it would be not in the best interest of the city if we disallowed the use that is in most urgent need in our city right now. >> commissioner richards? >> i respect my fellow commissioner's opinions and i respect the community a lot. if the community rises up in the future and says we want housing

on this site, they should go to the supervisor and ask for an amendment to allow housing. this isn't a last chance gasp. they can be flexible. to ensure this trust of the community, we should follow what they have been asking us and offer a dozen years. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. thank you for all of the community folks who came to share their perspective. thank you to my fellow commissioners. all of us have been thinking a lot about this particular parcel end to the community cross -- process of the community has been through and also holding the historical impacts of this community and to the deep desire for a community space that offers green space and offers educational opportunities and investment that is way overdue in this community. i am thrilled that a community facility is coming online. i think as was said in the

presentation, this is an important mitigation efforts. [please stand by]

you you affordable looks significantly different in that community than in others. i want the community to b to bee to right that if it did you come forward. >> mr. star, did you have a comment? >> i want to clarify. pc is a special agency with absolute jurisdiction over the property. anything they propose does not need to come back to you. just so you know, you do not have final control over what is built on the site. they have to abide by the zoning of the site. if you say housing not permitted they cannot do housing. if you say it is permitted they can do housing. it is up to them to approve it

through whatever process they have. >> there is no process that we would have to. if this rose to e.i.r.? >> it is the process does someone with the pc want to speak to the jurisdiction? >> do they certify their own? >> if at some future point in time the use change the proposed project we are starting construction on next year, then there would be environmental review of that project. >> okay. >> the project you propose is cleared environmentally and you are ready to go? >> correct. >> i think. >> it is a matter of the zoning permitting future uses. >> allowing housing on that parcel wouldn't affect your ability to build what is being

built today? >> that's correct. >> even if this legislation were to pass that said housing allowed on that site, it wouldn't change your project necessarily? >> that's true. >> it could give you the flexibility in the future. >> a future executive director, supervisor macon template that. >> there is a parking lot and that is not needed. there was a desire to have affordable housing on that site. zoning for housing would allow that to do that, if it wasn't zoned for housing you wouldn't beep able to do that. >> correct. >> i agree with the commissioners that spoke about giving the flexibility. we are a zoning agency. mr. parcels are zoned for different uses, housing, housing and retail. it doesn't have to be all of those. it has to be one of them, but i

think we look at this broadly, and we said zoning that could last for 50 to 100 years. i don't know how old the zoning is here. it makes sense this parcel also allows for housing. we are not saying you should build housing if the community doesn't wanted it. in the future if there is a desire to have housing, that is what we do, we set zoning for decades, not just for projects before us. it makes bottle sense to have this parcel allowed to be housing. it is a decent site for housing. i get there is a process with the puc. they control what happens at the site with the community if there isn't a desire for housing, we will proceed with the project which i think was great that is proposed. i would support the legislation as proposed by supervisor cohen

and it will move forward but give us flexibility in a decade or so if things change. commissioner richarded. >> we have the people here because of the conversation the director had with the mayor's office. we had 50 to 100 people. they said we don't trust you. they are back room deals. if the community said we do want housing, i would support a zoning change for housing. here is a community that is jerked around for a long time. giving them something to trust us on is a good idea. i am not against housing. i am for the community. lets make sure we change the zone anything the future. it is not fixed. >> one last point. the doping around this property loves housing. it is not the case. pdr2 does not permit housing that is a concern the department has. the impacts on housing around to

the surrounding industrial uses hasn't been fully evaluated. the community has stated clearly and the director has made a strong commitment not to support housing. it is pdr2 zoned within a pdr2 zoned district. that is most intensive allowing heavy industrial uses. >> we have seen in the recent past where supervisor kim put forward legislation that would allow for conversions of pdr parcels to affordable housing, recognizing affordable housing. i get it. i don't want to debate it, but i recognize, i mean we have a project before us. it is not before us. there is a project. puc is in ultimate control of the land. we are just saying if the

supervisor wants flexibility like many zoning districts i don't see a huge problem. i would like to see it go forward. it would be allowed under supervisor cohen's legislation or the proposal to amend. >> right now it is being played out like they are disagrees with the supervisors over the watershed. the idea they are in lock step and they are going to do everything the board wants. it is played out now, not happening. i vote no. >> one final comment. mr. star did a great job. i would if i could direct your attention to 1-a that goes forward to say if you choose to

support the legislation to allow housing on the site that you encourage the board to define what below market rate housing is. i will flag that for your consideration and deliberation. >> okay. is there a motion, commissioners? commissioner koppel. >> i make a motion to approve the legislation as opposed striking nonpossibility of house you go. >> how about the recommendation to define parameters. i think it is a little vague. the rental would be to define -- the recommendation would be to define. is there a second? >> second. >> commissione commission koppe.

>> as proposed. >> the motion is seconded to approve this proposed legislation -- well the legislation as proposed. (roll call). >> so moved commissioners the motion passes five-1 with commissioner richards voting again. >> 17. this is a draft environmental emoption -- impact report.

>> thank you. >> good afternoon. rachel with the planning department staff and environmental review coordinator for the potrero power station you. the principal planner, john

francis city wide planner and john from the mayor's office. other members of the team are present. there is a handout i will refer you to later. copies are available for members of the public at the table on my left. we are here to receive public testimony on the draft dir and to formulate any comments to commit on the draft. i would light u like to note we have a stenographer present to create a transcript. i would encourage all speakers to speak slowly and clearly. we would appreciate members of the public to state their name for the record prior to oral comment on the draft e.i.r. the project sponsor proposes to redevelop a 29-acre site along

the central bay side waterfront. the project would include up to approximately 5.4 million gross square feet of development. given the size and complexity we have asked the project sponsor team to give a brief overview to orient the project. i will introduce the following three speakers. the project sponsor, karen perkins and will designer and john of the mayor's office of economic and work force development. >> mr. landa. >> how long were you planning? can we do 10 minutes? >> we will put that on the clock. whenever you are ready you need the computer?

>> good afternoon. i am with the california barrel company. the project sponsor for the power station. this is about re-opening a 28-acre waterfront site in the background and fueled the growth of the city. today we are in the process of weaving the site back to the fabric and re-opening dogpatch waterfront. since the time of gold rush this is somewhat san francisco needed to go. gas to provide lights to san francisco and sugar and electricity to power the city

for the past 100 years. more than a decade ago there was a turning point when th the citizens helped close the power station and helped the path we are discussing this afternoon. today the power station is in the ideal site for development. it is all but vacant mostly on bedrock with adjacent to growing neighborhoods with an opportunity for growth without displacing a resident or business. it was our goal to partner. we moved offices to dogpatch and some have moved to the neighborhood. we have had an actively neighborhood process. weekly meetings and large events bringing more than 10,000 people to visit the power station. the feedback is to create an urban waterfront to reflect the

priorities of the neighborhood. the desire of the community was to have a mixed use neighborhood. they did not want single use. they wanted mix of uses to bring vibrancy to all times of the day weekdays and nights. thidogpatch is successful. in the project before you today is committed to deliver more housing than any other project on the central bay front. we heard the community's desire to open up the waterfront as quickly as possible. 100 feet you see today sits vacant. in the future it will be an extension of dogpatch to allow current and future residents to live, work and play. the six acres will be filled with recreation and extension of the blue greenway and ways to enjoy the bay. we heard the need for spaces and

services to help complete the neighborhood. we heard the need for sidewalks and streets, community facilities, neighborhood retail and major investments in transit. we are looking to invest in dogpatch to fill the gaps in the wonderful community. the community benefit package at this point is ongoing collaboration and the package will evole through conversations with the neighborhood and the mayor. i would like to highlight the community benefits. we are proud to announce more than $150 million in infrastructure, $50 million in transit, commitment to build a grocery store, one of the largest child care facilities in the city, 40,000 square feet of new pdr, investments to the seawall and large stations four community facilities that we

look forward to to definding future spaces for the coming months. i will turn it over to karen to guide you in the rest of the projects. >> good afternoon. glad tok here and to follow up on the discussion because as this illustrates, we are proposing to weave our 20-acres back to the city. intensive and interesting form in a way that really makes it a san francisco neighborhood with the intensity there whit was alive in -- that was there when it was alive in the history. this is the diagram with the color buildings at the power station. the small blocks used are one of the great benefits on the site. these are about a third to half the size of the mission bay blocks to allow us to open up

the site and invite people there to use public spaces and reach the bay edge. variety and form means stepping to the waterfront. we have 65 feet at the water. most are up to 180. one building further back goes to 300 feet, the height of the stack on the site. these buildings frame the public faces and provide a mix at the water's edge that you can see. an exclamation point on the site where we combine reuse of existing buildings and new hotel to bring people to the water, something that is very much needed along the bay front as a true destination. the next image speaks to land use overlooking in colors at the

blocks on the site. the small blocks i was describing majority housing on the site. 60% of the square footage on the site goes to housing. from there is rd at 28% and exclamation point and the community facilities that line anden violin the streets -- o are 12%. we have released three very important documents all payment. we have consciously done this so when the e.i.r. came out there was a draft for development so you could see what we are committed to in terms of controls that can deliver on the projects and the infrastructure plan. we hope this is helpful. they have been out in the public viewing. we will get comments on a number of items. the design controls are going to

be very important as i said in delivering on the project. two examples. this slowed shows the area near the third street indus street district -- industrial district. it is a demonstration of the character that will be there. the guidelines will be sure there are buildings in the industrial district and the ways they open to the block in this case to 23rd street, and make sure that connection is there. this site continues to tell the story as you saw in the images showed earlier. a second example is one of up weighs in which we are calling for variety in design. it should not be boring. there are many opportunities for changes in uses on the edges, the buildings and that will be just two of many examples.

there is a fabulous an ray of option -- an ray of options for using the open spaces. we are telling the stories of the site in the long-term future. it is related to the math you see here where people will be able to walk through the site and come upon interesting pieces that are salvage and stories told with a hub around the staff which is the draw on the site. this is very much in the works right now and is full of interesting ideas about how to bring art and use of materials on the site to help tell the story and make it very attractive and interesting to all age groups. one of the really challenged places on the site has suffered tremendously is station a, an original buildingcho you can see what has been removed of the

building. it has had 50 years of neglect and 35 years without a roof. it is suffering. in terms of telling the story a great opportunity will be unit 3 and the stack on the edge of the water and a great attraction with the use that has public accommodation. you can see the unit three the building with the steel structure as it was built. you can see how it could be used and this is one sketch by our architects looking to see how you can transform that building to a hotel facility and it would be one of a kind experience around the bay. this is the generation that is delivering activities along the bay. one rendering shows the main street to bring people in on humboldt. streets are key to this site and the view then to the water, we are raised able to have a view

down to the water on the site. i would like to have a couple minutes more since we had trouble getting started. >> take two more minutes. >> inviting neighborhood streets for 2013. there is a bus there. 55 dogpatch on this map will be coming to have a terminal site there. people will be able to get on the bus and get around. the streets are planned for multiple uses. we are committed to a shuttle to take people to caltran and to work with curb management which is key with the buildings today. two final slides. this green area is pedestrian. it is open space. it is soft. this is the point on the waterfront moving south where we get more green, more soft, creating a living room for dogpatch and the area. six acres of parks including

wonderful play and active areas for soccer on rooftops and in the fields. final slide reminding what it will be like in the park space towards unit three and the stack and the sense of the activities surrounding it but not cars. this is for people. soft, quiet for families and healthy living. the result will be a place of deep history and compelling opportunity and a lot of beauty and enjoyment. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i will be brief. one slide here. john low with the office of economic development. thank you. now that we have refreshed your

memory on the richness of the program involved here and as you know from prior projects, all of this lives in the public benefits package which itself is memorialized in the development agreement which ask a major component of the entitlement package which we hope is before you in the middle of next year with the range of documents and actions involved in that. remember the da itself is a contract between the city and the sponsor. it is a contract in essence the city delivers the entitlement and in return for rich package of public benefits the sponsor is required by law to provide. this contract is formed by economic analysis project feasibility. we can't ask for so familiar things the project is not

feasible to build or we get nothing and nothing hatches. the goal is to find that balancing act where the city is getting very good return on the investment. the agreement itself ensures the project will perform well in the categories you see, housing and affordable housing is at the top of list. it addresses many other relevant topics, sea level rise i work force development, and-last point is the contract itself is also an intense ental lansing act -- balancing act. i would add site specific opportunities to that list. this is on the waterfront, obviously, there are special opportunities to do thing this is terms of waterfront access. there is no free lunch.

we ask for one item that needs to come from somewhere. for instance, historic pressservation has got a lot of conversation. there is money that has t to coe from somewhere affordable housing. nothing comes for free, unfortunately. that wraps up the presentation. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you for the presentation on the project. i want to remind everyone the purpose of the hearing is to receive comment on the adequacy of the report rather than comments for the projector the master plan. there will be future opportunities to discuss the details of the proposed project such as at the approval project.

the period began on october 4, 2018 will continue to november 19. i would likely to provide t summary. affordable impacts were identified feasible mitigation measures. with the implementation the following impact would be significant. under historic architectural resources impacts on the buildings around the historic district at project specific and cumulative level. it would result from the demolition of up to five buildings to contribute to the district. the unit three power block. first three the station a are eligible four list anything the california register. demolition would results in impacts to significant

buildings. under transportation and circulation the impacts to the transit operations at the specific and cumulative level. it would result from the increase in ridership on the 22 and 48 lines. the transit operation impacts would result from increased vehicle traffic on local streets that could result in delay where transit only lanes are not present. noise. there would be elevated noise level, operational noise increases on roadways and cumulative traffic noise increases. the current noise levels are quite low currently. noise impacts would occur due to substantial increase during construction and the project operations. all those these are considered significant the permanent noise

levels would not be in excess what is expected if you are ban environment. air pollution emissions impacts during overlapping periods of construction operation, criteria you operations and cumulative regional air quality impacts related to construction and project operations would result from the large mullets tie phase construction project and increases and use of diesel backup generators. wind. potential for hazardous wind conditions during periods of construction or due to changes in the building layout. if the project is built out in accordance with the massing significant mappings would not occur. we have identified a significant impact with mitigation that calls for additional wind tunnel

testing as portions move forward for entitlement. note about construction. the construction of the proposed project is estimated to occur over 15 years beginning in 2020, ending in 2034. it could vary depending on market conditions. project condition would occur in seven phases with each phase three to five years. it would result from the overall size of the proposed project and the length of the construction period. they identified impacts to mitigate to the following topics. third street industrial district from the new construction, pedestrians, construction vibration including historic buildings. operational noise and excess noise standards diesel matter biological resources including

nests birds, bats, mammals in the san francisco bay and tribal cultural resources as well as human remains. i want to talk briefly about the alternative. the dir analyzed you seven you alternatives. these were developed in consultation with the architectural resource committee what are the impacts? under the code compliant all existing historical resources would be demolished. those of the full preservation alternative us would avoid impacts. four alternatives would have significant impacts to individual resources. they would be somewhat reduced

compared to the proposed project. the project level and cumulative impacts to third street district would be less than significant. the impact to the district related to the new construction would be the same as under the proposed project and less with mitigation. public hearing before the historic preservation was held on october 17, 2018 to receive public testimony related to the resource impact of the proposed project allow the hpc to formulate comments. subsequent to the hearing they issued the comment letter which the secretary has provided to you. i will briefly summarize the contents of the letter. hpc agreed the analysis of the historic resources was adequate and clear. agreed analyzed appropriate range to address the historic resource impacts.

recommended adoption of c for historical resources or one of the alternatives or a combination. returning to the handouts. there are two material the draft e.i.r. 6-1 is a summary comparison of the development program for the proposed project in each alternative. second compares impacts of the proposed project and each alternative. those are for your comments to formulate your comments. i would like to remind the public to respond in the final e.i.r. comments must be submitted today or in writings to the planning defendant by 5:00 p.m. on november 19. when submitting comments please state your name for the record. after the close of the comment period the planning department

will prepare and publish the document which contains the comments. publication will be followed by certification of the e.i.r. at a hearing before the planning commission. this ends my presentation. city staff are available to answer clarifying questions you may have. i would suggest the item be open for public testimony and commission comment on the draft e.i.r. >> thank you. we will open to public comment. we are commenting on the draft e.i.r., not approving the project today. we will have more hearings on the project. comments can be sent to the planning department anytime before november 19. i have a couple speaker cards. ron and catherine. if others would like to speak please line up and approach.