today. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner melgar. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i've been watching this process for quite a while. and i was honored to have been hosted on a tour of the excelsior and getting firsthand account from a lot of the members about their vision for the neighborhood. i have also worked for quite some time with freddie and charlie, stephanie, and supervisor safai and i have no doubt that everyone wants the best. we may not agree on every strategy, but i have been pleased at the amount of goodwill and good faith that there's been bringing people together. i think stephanie is one of the most competent people that i know. so i think it's in good hands.

i think that the excelsior is undergoing a presses of accelerated gentrification. and i see a lot of similarities between excelsior and the mission in cultural assets and how some things have played out. it does have higher home ownership rate, which is an asset, but it also has a lot less services. it is an underserved neighborhood. it's been underinvested in in terms of investment from the city and also social capital. we don't have as many nonprofits in the excelsior. so the ones involved are carrying a lot of weight. i think that it will be on us to get good agreements and community benefits agreements. i take to heart the call for do

no harm before things go forward. and i think that, you know, we are having had the experiences that we have had in other commercial corridors have learned some lessons and i think the planning department staff has learned some lessons. i think sue epstein and her team have been really great. so i think going forward, i'm hopeful that we'll come up with something that is going to work. thank you, supervisor safai, for taking this on and being so proactive. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: this is a great document. a lot of hard work went into this. i applaud the members of the committee and looked for the input of the other people that spoke today. a few things come to mind. this is probably one of the more frequent neighborhoods i visit

these days. before living in the castro, might as well be the moon. and i would go out there and take a look. i went out with commissioner moore and met with some community folks. a couple of things that strike me putting it in context with where we are with the state-proposed bills, for lack of a better term. land use and housing 2.5 and 2.6. support and monitor plans for eviction ordinances. 1979, rent control in. it was last year that we went to see if the person who was supposed to move into the unit actually moved in. 40-year gap. we have a passive, complaint-driven enforcement. we need active enforcement. we need people to knock on doors

and look up public data to see that people are doing what they said they would do, whether it's construction, whatever. that's a gaping hole. and -- and short-term rentals. it's a gaping hole in our stabilization strategy. i would hope that supervisor safai could take a look and what what we can do. we're talking about a few people salaried to stabilize communities. i don't think it's money wasted if we give them the tools they need to. gentrificati gentrification, interesting enough. i don't have the s.b.a. map in front of me. this neighborhood has a target on its back. call a spade a spade. you look at the renters that are there. it's about 1/3. they're not under rent controls. i know we'll have a hearing

about if tenants are in units and things. if you want to get rid of tenants, raise the money to something they couldn't pay and they have to leave. i know friends of mine have been in single-family homes that have that happen and i hear stories about it all over the place. i don't know if it's a community of concern, but i actually at the end of my vacation, i have friends in l.a. and i went to the l.a. river, where they now took what i thought was going to be a not great natural asset trying to turn it into a great natural asset, do a riverwalk and people are moving in, nice, high-end coffee shops and it's becoming nicer. however, the neighborhood i visited was called frog town and it's between i-10 and the river. it was a bunch of little, single-family homes. they up-zoned the neighborhood. over time, the people that are

in the community, the neighborhood, are not there. developers have come in. i have pictures of the for sale signs on the little homes. such and such investments. there's a picture that i have that's interesting because a developer created a public park and made it nice. from a displacement point of view, there was a woman in a house that didn't want to sell. so they built a massive building right around her house. so she's got this little house with windows looking in. and this is what's going to happen to this neighborhood. the single-family homes will go away and members of the community will go away. it's happened in western addition and all over the place. i really want to understand how we have a stabilization program given all the pressures that will be facing it. there's a community of concern and then there's a 5-year plan under the legislation to have a

plan that's given that's a great invitation to those on wall street to buy the land, wait for 5 years, and then they will make a fortune. i'm really worried about your neighborhood, supervisor safai, in light of the pressure that could be coming down the line. i want to fire that shot across the bow of the ship. as you look on page 91, the neighborhood saying that three- and four-story buildings are appropriate. the most undesirable and not appropriate are taller than eight stories. the shorter you go, the more desirable they are. it's an interesting thing given where we're going. we talked about minneapolis, triplexes better than a huge building being built. this is what i think will be

happening to this neighborhood in due time. it's really stark. one other thing, just to note -- i think that's it. i think it's a vulnerable neighborhood, especially in light of what's happening, i'm very concerned. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. and thank you to everybody who participated in this. i think it's a great effort. i don't think the document is the answer, but the process and continued process, obviously, as you have all stated is the answer. we know the pressures of gentrification are here in the excelsior, whether state law changes or not. it's happening. this is cutting edge. whether you agree with some of the things in here or disagree with some of them, we boil it down here to that gentrification will happen whether development is made or not. there's a lot more that goes into that than if a market and

housing project is built. there's protecting existing developments, open space, schools, commercial corridor. this is great in cutting edge. and we should do this in more neighborhoods. and appreciate the continued effort that will make this work. >> commissioner richards: i want to be clear. i'm not saying it's not good. there's a lot of good stuff in here, but i don't want to be rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. i want to be sure we put it in the context of what's happening statewide, okay? >> president hillis: please do. >> supervisor safai: i appreciate the feedback and the public comment. everyone that spoke here was part of the process, except for the person that presented the demographic information. that was from outside the neighborhood. this is one of the reasons why it was a longer process.

and, again, thank you to the department. because we wanted to adjust halfway through. the focus was intended to be just on the commercial corridor. but as sue said, the nature of planning is, you want to be able to respond. so we made it larger in the sense that it was outside the realm of commercial corridor. i think you are right to say that there are extreme pressures and we've seen it happen overnight. when i moved into the neighborhood, a single-family home was between $300,000 and 4 $400,000 and now some are being renovated and sold for $2 million. yes, we have extended families. thank god most people hand their home down. they're home-rich but cash-poor. it didn't mean they have disposable income. we tried to bring the focus back

to getting representatives that speak for all groups, different voices, as much as we can. we appreciate the need to make additions. and that's what the office of economic and work force development. we invited in the community partner, it's what she's funded for. we have $15 million coming from the excelsior outer mission safe streets plan. that money is there. we'll use this process and invite everyone to help with the traffic zero. we put money in the budget last year to do a better streets process. trying to bring the focus back. yes, of course, we have to be cognizant of all the pressures. i know that supervisor ronen preferred a piece of legislation to deal with gouging of rents. we're looking at misplacement

across the board. we funded outside, legal organizations to work with displaced tenants. we've had an upsurge in that. even though we have single-family homes, along our commercial corridor is where we have our apartment buildings and many of them have been divided up to be more housing than was intended. an elderly woman had been living in a place for 12 years and the landlord sent her a letter and said, we're no longer renting this out by room. and having 12 leases. you can all stay, but you have it have one lease. that's not legal. we called in tenderloin housing clinic and they were working. but this is the second time. as much as they can try to take advantage of people and their inability to understand the law, we're trying to be nimble and adjust in that way. we're really happy to see the beginning, groundwork, that we

lay working with you, starting to bear fruit. we'll come back and look for your feedback as well as the communities and try to make this a better document. thank you for your feedback today. >> commissioner richards: one more time. i know supervisor fewer is working on a rental registry. i think it would be helpful to understand what kind of rental housing stock we have and who is in there. i hope you can sign on or support it -- >> supervisor safai: i haven't seen it, but there is also rental properties changing hands. but i will look at that. >> commissioner richards: your thoughts on active enforcement team for rent board, versus complaint-driven? >> supervisor safai: i have to look into that. i look for you for guidance on that. when people pave over their front yard, it's

complaint-driven. someone chops up a home, it's complaint-driven. for this point in terms of people being evicted, i know we are having people sign under penalty of perjury and that's what is cited, took 40 years to update that. we signed that into law. so that was an important thing to ensure that people are moving into the homes that they say they're moving into. >> commissioner richards: when i get off muni and there is somebody wanting to tag my clipper card, that's active enforcement. i'm trying to compare. >> supervisor safai: and enforcement is always better active rather than passive. i would be happy to look into that. >> commissioner moore: one statistic i would like to see is how many families are renting to family members and get a better understanding for that. should renters be evicted, it means that you are displacing an entire family. it would be interesting to shed some light on that fact.

>> supervisor safai: that would be good to look into. my understanding, and i know commissioner melgar has a lot of relationships in my district and knowledge as well, but from all the people i know and time i've been there, it's mainly a family member that owns the home and then grandparents that live in the ground stairs and children and that's where you get a lot of the additional carving up of the homes. i understand that's the pressures of living in san francisco in an expensive market the other that we'll work with you on is when speculators are buying the homes, the one we dealt with in monticello and divide them up, all bedrooms, and renting out $1,500 a room for students. that's also taking away an affordable home for families and there's pressure to displace because they know they can get $15,000 to rent out a single-family home because

they're renting it out to students. not to mention the neighborhood impact with all the cars and people and parties and that's a difference issue. we'll find the sweet spot with ram and his team. i know commissioner melgar is interested in that and all of you are. we'll try to massage it the right awand bring that back as well. thank you, commissioners. >> president hillis: thank you very much. and thank you to everybody who participated in this. jonas? >> clerk: item 10, 1996-0016cwp, commerce and industry invent or 2017 informational presentation. >> i would like to introduce to you another planner you have not met. ken chi joined the citywide information and analysis group, as a data wrangler, we call it. in addition to managing and maintaining data, ken will be designing and setting up mobile

field data application collection. ken came here after a year with historical preservation, where he developed on-line information using an open-source app. he worked in public works and he used data and maps to generate operational flows. he worked with the citywide planning staff with tree status. he interned with urban land use. most interesting, ken commutes on his bike, rain or shine. in his free time, he grows potatoes, pumpkins, sweet potatoes, strawberries and habanero peppers. he's been experimenting with

long beans and cherry tomatoes. we welcome ken to the commission. >> president hillis: welcome. >> good afternoon. i'm ken, information and analysis group. today i will present some background and highlights from the 2017 commerce and industry inventory and then we'll be able for any questions or comments. annual report compiles information from a variety of internal and external data sources. in addition to compiling a snapshot, the data we compile should serve as a background information for updating commerce and industry element of the general plan. 2017 was the seventh consecutive year of growth in san francisco.

we now have a total of 714,000 jobs in the city. this is certainly a record for the city. the city added 11,400 jobs in 2017. over the past decade, we've added almost 150,000 jobs. since the great recession, we've had consistent job growth every year. and employment will continue to fall to 2.9% in the city. as you can see, the city outperformed the state and region as a whole. employment has grown across almost all sector of the economy, with the exception of the hotel industry. the average rate citywide is

$109,000. it has grown consistently over the past decade. average rate in some incomes across the sector. the inventory tracked activities, matched by a number of permits and construction value reported. we have a slight increase in permits filed in 2017 and it's about the same level in 2015. it is important to notice that the total construction value of the permits decreased by 42% to $3.8 billion. that's likely because we have fewer large-scale projects than the previous year. lastly, let's look at the latest

unemployment data for 2018 for san francisco. as of october, 2018, we have employment rate of 2.3% compared to 2.9% for 2017. and that, commissioners, are the main highlights from this year's report. one, job growth. two, growth but not all sectors. three, unemployment has decreased. as always, the data is available on the website. i'm happy it answer any questions after public comment. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment on this item? ms. rob?

>> good afternoon. ozzie rob, san francisco land use coalition. yes, the thing that really struck me from this report was, a very interesting number. overhead, please. as you can see, this number shows how dense the city of san francisco is, compared to the rest of the bay area. and the other counties. we are basically only .7 of the bay area in terms of land, and we have 11% of the population along with 18% of the jobs. so when we have issues such as

providing more housing, how to deal with the growth in the region, i would just like to point out to you, how unfair it is for san francisco to be put together in the same bucket with the rest of the bay area who have not pulled their fair share. to prove to you, i have another startling set of numbers here. this comes from a report from 1980-2015. and it shows that san matao county provided one dwelling for every 3.2 jobs they created. same is true for the other counties, suburban counties. as you can see, santa clara created 2.75 jobs for every

dwelling. so you would look at the square miles that the counties have versus the 49 square miles that we have and the picture becomes crystal clear. what are we doing? of course, we don't have the jurisdiction to force, say, redwood city or south san francisco, to create more homes, but legislation like what scott weiner proposed, one has to ask the question -- why is it that wee are being put in the same bucket as the rest of the counties that do not create housing but create jobs? it all goes back to the job-and-housing balance. i know that ms. rogers is working on the impact of s.b. 50 on san francisco. i would like to add one more thing. can we have the impact on communities of color and

underprivileged communities as part of this report, so we could compare that to the suburban communities and get the impact? not all cities are created equal. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? commissioner richards? we close public comment. >> commissioner richards: hi. great report. i look forward to this every year. i think it's the fifth one i've had. good job. i don't want to appear too negative sometimes. two questions. construction spending in your page 5 drops 2016 to 2017. was that a result of housing not being constructed or office building not being constructed? it went from $6.6 billion to $3.8 billion. can you illuminate us on that? >> for 2017 the highest cost

project is $72 million. and we don't have that -- we have 15 projects above $72 million. those are mostly residential and some office space. >> commissioner richards: so it's a mix? >> if i might, very big projects completed construction that year. and i expect it will go up again. it's hard to know, but i think it's an unusual situation where several big projects closed out construction that year before. >> commissioner richards: on page 12, where he have an increase in population, but decrease in muni ridership. why is that? anybody analyze what's going on there? i know we see the different modes of travel, but are people taking your ride-hail companies?

>> we don't have super detailed data. i'm not sure if sfmta does, but this came up last year, too. the system, i think, to my knowledge, is reaching capacity in a way. so we're hitting this plateau. if we add more service, perhaps we can have more riders. >> commissioner richards: if we compare to bart -- >> they're also plateauing. you can only run a certain number of trains through the tube during rush hour, so they're reaching that point as well. >> commissioner richards: got it. i look forward to the casa way to address transportation needs. there are people facing capacity. >> vice president melgar: thank you. i look forward to this every year. i almost can't sleep waiting for it. [laughter] it's really great. good work. thank you so much for

presenting. it was a good presentation. it also leaves me wanting more. specifically, we just had, you know, an informational hearing about the excelsior plan. i'm wondering how these things go together. for me, a lot of the picture of people is missing in this. land use, jobs, picture, you know. so as was alluded to, there are great disparities in terms of who has access to jobs in san francisco by race, gender, neighborhood. some of it has to do with transportation. some of it has to do with schools and education, access to schools and education by neighborhood. and so that -- if we could have a combination of this and something that your equity team puts out, it would just provide a more nuanced and in some ways

and useful picture for public policy of land use and gentrification and access to jobs and transportation. so i'm looking forward to seeing that develop. i think this is really great. like i said, i do look forward to it every year. i do wish we had more nuance. i'm looking at this map on page 25 and has the neighborhoods and uses. for me, it's missing the people. i look forward to it. thank you. >> i guess i would say that our department could not agree with you more. we really think it's the right way to look at these issues, is how the different aspects relate to each other, the physical with the human environment. and that's been part of a

restructuring we did this past year to come -- combine our equity work. the new manager for that program came in in mid-november. she is on your advanced calendar for advanced presentation it talk to you about housing overview at the end of january on the hearing on the 31st. so that's one hearing that i wanted to draw your attention to. the other is a follow-up to this. it's a deeper dive on how we use data and analysis. so we'll be looking at that as well as our latest attempts with i.t. to do a modernization of data analysis. so that's next week. >> commissioner richards: i think commissioner melgar is spot on with the human element. a month ago, i mentioned that

there was a harvard study that said, you put a high-paying jobs next to the low-paying jobs, the low-paying job people don't have upward mobility. there is no tie between the two. and it's a harvard study. i will give you the info on that. there was an article in "the new york times" when i first started as a commissioner talking about jobs and transportation vis-a-vis upward mobility. the more connections a person has to make getting to work, a bus, train, airplane, the less upward mobility they have. i can share that with you. i have it somewhere. really interesting thing the human aspects in the context of jobs. >> president hillis: okay. thank you very much. appreciate it. jonas? >> clerk: that places us on item 11 for 2015-014028env, 3333

california street mixed use project, draft environmental report. >> president hillis, commissioners, lisa gibson, environmental review officer. i would like to introduce the planner that will present. this is kai zushi, senior planner in environmental

planning. kai has 10 years of experience, having worked as a city planner in oregon, washington, and california. notably, kai worked at the planning department for two years back in 2012-2014. after that, went off to law school at u.c. hastings. during law school, kai interned at the city attorney's office and worked on ceqa litigation and clerked for administrative law judges at the california public utilities commission. most recently, kai worked at a law clerk at the thomas law group. he worked on challenging ceqa cases, including the golden state warriors arena. the new hall ranch project. and city place in santa clara. luckily for us, ceqa and land use planning continue to be

kai's main focus. we're fortunate to have him working for us again at the planning department, where he rejoined us in september. thank you very much. >> thank you, lisa. i have slides to show. good afternoon, president hillis, and members of the commission. planning staff and environmental review coordinator for 3333 california street mixed-use project. the purpose of the hearing today is to receive comments on a draft environmental impact report, e.i.r., for the 3333 california street mixed-use project. deborah dwyer, environmental planner, justin grabbing, senior planner, and nick foster, current planner joining me today. and sks sponsor team is present.

there is a handout of my presentation and letter from the historic preservation. copies of these are available for members of the public on the table to my left. i would like to note we have a stenographer present to create a transcript of today's proceedings. so i would encourage all speakers to speak slowly and clearly to assist in the process. sorry about that. the 10.25-acre site is on the

south side of california street between laurel and presidio avenue and is currently occupied on the laurel heights campus. in order to facilitate the receipt of comments and orient the commission by the public, the project sponsor will provide a brief overview of the project. >> hello, commissioners. i'm lee luwtensky. the proposed project would creative 588 or 754 units, in addition to childcare, new public open space and neighborhood retail, all while reusing portions of the existing

building. oewd is working with the project sponsor to negotiate an agreement which would specify community benefits. there is a limit in scale with the project, focusing on open space and affordable housing. mayor breed has named housing, particularly affordable housing, a top priority of her administration the mayor has continued the work of late mayor lee and initial y iinitiali initialialized housing in all parts of the city. i thank you for your attention to this project. >> can i use this over here?

>> president hillis: yeah. either one. >> happy holidays, president hillis, commissioners, director ram, and staff. i'm dan safire, project sponsor. >> president hillis: pull that up closer to you. >> how's that? >> president hillis: good. >> okay we've been working on this project for close to four years and today we have a brief overview of the project as context for the draft e.i.r. we anticipate returning in the spring of this year to provide additional project detail including specific plans for the architecture and design. this is the site today. >> president hillis: can we go to the computer, please? there you go. >> it's bounded by california to the north, presidio to the east, euclid to the south, laurel to the west. our project began with a question -- how do you evolve a 10.3-acre, suburban, car-centric

campus for people connected to the neighborhoods around it? the site has a significant grade change of almost 65 feet from one end of the site to the next. so about 6 1/2 stories from the corner of california and presidio to the high point at euclid and laurel. the proposed project includes 558 residential units. 50,000 square feet of office space. 54,000 square feet of small-scale retail on california street and on-site childcare. this plan is consistent with the existing rm-1 zoning, which the planning code defines as residential mixed district at low density. you will see the walnut building that contains office in the base project. planning also requested, as was mentioned, we develop a variant at p.u.d. density. it allows it to go rm-2, minus

one unit, where residential mixed district that equates to 744 residential units. to achieve this density, the walnut building has two additional stories, same height as the jewish community center across the street, and 50,000 square foot of it office is eliminated, replaced with 186 residential units. apart from the walnut building change, the rest of the site is the same as the base project. in order to create designed diversity across this large site, our project team includes three building design architects and two landscape architects. the team was selected for their awarded contracts, commitment to architecture and urban planning. with 5 acres of usable open space, our team prioritized the

design. over the past four years, we've also had over 140 meetings with the community including large community meetings, neighborhood associations and individual neighbor meetings and we're continuing that outreach today. at a high level, here's some of the key design elements. the city and project sponsor team established a goal to weave this site back into the urban fabric through the creation of north-south and east-west pedestrian connectors. as you can see, the existing site is not pedestrian- or public-friendly the maniac's is through driveway entrances which are gated and walled. the current site is physically disconnected from the

neighborhood. with the walls, berms and surface parking lots, the site does not invite pedestrians through the site. you can see that the existing condition is also somewhat like an island, isolated and walled off from the existing neighborhoods. the project design reconnects the site to the existing neighborhood grid through the north-south, east-west connector, turning the site into four well-scaled blocks. we're also retaining and reusing the main building and cutting a pedestrian connection through the building, aligned with walnut street to the north to create the north-south access. our draft e.i.r. acknowledges the presence of an historic resource and our plan is to convert the retain building from grandfathered office use to

residential. our plan increases pedestrian access points around the site. it makes the project more porous, including walkability, accessibility. the proposed project will be designed to be a.d.a a.d.a.-accessible, which is extremely important given the grade change of the site. this is a view of the mayfair walk connector looking east, the overlook, which is where there's an existing portion of the building right now that hangs over this area that would be removed, but it would provide the public with scenic views and a.d.a. access and stairs to presidio avenue below. to help reconnect, activate and integrate the site into the existing neighborhood fabric, we're proposing small-scale, retail along california

connecting with laurel village shopping center to the west and extending to the fire credit building and ella's restaurant to the east. you can see on this image the pink, shaded element includes laurel village shopping center and then the small-scale retail proposed on our project. we believe that providing mixed use will make for a convenient, whole neighborhood, promote walkability, eyes on the street and safety. more importantly, it will provide us with an opportunity to curate uses missing currently for existing and future residents. our approach has been to complement laurel village shopping center. we've met with the laurel village and sacramento street merchants many times and will continue to work with the community and merchants to complement the existing retail and not to compete with the proposed project is 5 acres

of open space, over half of which will be publicly accessible. it creates a variety of open spaces inspired by the california landscapes. the existing open space is primarily asphalt designed for cars and includes over 3.2 acres of surface parking. this is in addition to the lawn at euclid and laurel and the space on presidio. by contrast, our project proposes to put all the parking underground, freeing up the ground plain for usable and welcoming open spaces. additionally, the project is on a transit corridor and actually between two of the main transit corridors, geary and california lines, and it's extremely well-served by muni with a number of buses adjacent to the

site. the primary project open spaces include cypress square, which is accessed off a grand staircase and a.d.a. access on california street. it will be a south-facing plaza centered around the cypress trees. we will be retaining the view corridor to downtown. we're proposing to increase the number of street trees around the site to 613% of the current count and the number of on-site trees will be 146% of their current count all to improve the urban canopy. as part of the landscape plan, we worked with our arborist and landscape architect to identify key trees to be preserved and celebrated. some of our open spaces including cypress square, oak meadow and pine street steps are

designed around the trees and enhanced with additional trees. the proposed project and the variant also include on-site childcare of approximately 14,600 square feet, with capacity for about 175 children. we understand this is a major priority for the city and we believe that this amenity will encourage young families to join and stay in the neighborhood. to complement this family friendly approach, approximately 60% of the total residences proposed are 2- 3- and 4-bedroom units. finally, this project has been designed with the city's important housing policies and objectives in mind. it will bring new homes to san francisco's west side and district 2, where very little new housing has been built over the last 40 years.

it will provide affordable housing units that will help to preserve the diversity of our city and equity of our neighborhoods it will provide millions of new annual tax revenue, due to conversion from public, tax-exempt use to, residential, mixed-use, in addition to fees toward open space, jobs, housing, schools, transportation and childcare. in short, this project is a significant housing and mixed-use opportunity for district 2 and for the future of our city. thank you very much and our team will also be available to answer any questions you might have and also greg miller is here. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. again, the purpose of the hearing is to take public

comment on the e.i.r. on the adequacy and completeness of the project pursuant to ceqa. and san francisco's look procedures for implementing ceqa. it's not a hearing for approval or disapprovadisapproval. that hearing will follow the final ceqa certification. in addition, there will be future opportunities to benefit on the project. i would like to make a few comments to facilitate the receipt of comments. the draft e.i.r. finds that the project or project variance even with mitigation would result insignificant, unaffordable

impact. with respect to historic resources for the 3333 california street property transit capacity on the 43 route and construction noise. draft e.i.r. also finds that other significant impact of construction vibration and operational noise, human remains and tribal cultural resources, biological resources, can be mitt fwigat mitigated. there are six alternatives to the project to address significant and unavoidable impact. in addition to the no project alternative, the e.i.r. includes two preservation alternatives and two partial.

and a code conforming alternative. details are in chapter im of the e.i.r. preservation was done by the historic preservation commission. with respect to the significant and unavoidable projects or variant, it would result in a less-than-significant impact on historic architectural resources and reduce but not avoid the noise impact. the partial preservation alternatives would reduce the resources but not to a less-that-significant level. and we would still have significant impacts to transit capacity and construction noise. the code would result in

construction noise impacts, similar to those of the projects and project variant and also result in a transit capacity impact, but be reduced to the project or project variant. a public hearing was sold on december 5, 2018, in order for the commissioners to provide comments to the planning commission on the draft e.i.r. the h.b.c. issued a comment letter, which the commission secretary has provided to you. the historic resources was adequate and accurate and agree that the draft e.i.r. analyzed an appropriate range of preservation alternatives. the h.b.c. suggested that some of the preservation alternatives and expressed interest in

expressing more about a neighborhood alternative expressed by the public at the hearing. as i mentioned, there's a stenographer present to create a transcript of today's proceedings, so i would encourage speakers to speak slowly and clearly. we would appreciate if members of the public would state their name for the record, but members of the public are not required to provide personal information when they communicate with the commission or the department. in this case, the information from the hearing will be available to the public on the website as part of the proposed project record of proceedings. staff is not here to answer comments today. the purpose is to receive comments on the draft e.i.r. there will be an opportunity to comment itself. it will be transcribed and responded to in writing in the r.t.c. the r.t.c. will response to

verbal and written comments received and make revisions as appropriate. before i conclude, i would like to remind members of the public that the draft e.i.r. was published on november 7, 2018. the public comment period for this project began on november 8, 2018, and closes at 5:00 p.m., december 24, 2018. comments on the draft e.i.r. must be submitted orally at today's hearing or in writing at the address here or planningdy december 24 for them to be responsed to in the final e.i.r. there have been requested to extend public comment to january 8, 2019. the environmental review officer has opined that an extension is not warranted in this case. after hearing comments from the members of the public, will

receive comment by the planning commission. this ends my presentation. city staff and team are available to answer questions. i would respectfully request that the public hearing be open. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll open this up for public comment. i want to reiterate, this is comment on the draft e.i.r. and its adequacy. we'll have the project before us sometime next year. we won't answer necessarily the comments made today. we may make some of our own on the e.i.r., but it's a tool to help us analyze the project in the future. i will call names. roger miles. arlene bakken. adam mcdonough, richard cutler. if i called your name, you can speak in any order. line up on the screened side of the room. go ahead, sir.

go ahead. you can speak in any order. if i've called your name, you are welcome to come up and speak and tell us about the e.i.r. no? okay. next speaker. there's no order necessarily. everybody's -- if your name has been called, line up on the screen side of the room and you can approach in any order. now's the time. welcome. >> good afternoon. my name is roger miles.

>> the developer his' proposal would destroy this period the existing and building fit so well in the neighbourhood now." just nestles right in. we don't need any more

commercial. it would just provide a lot of extra traffic, parking issues, and also wouldn't necessarily be good for extra competition for the existing small stores up and down sacramento or adjacent. in the village association agrees with that. so i would urge you to support the neighbourhood full preservation measure. that will leave everything basically as it is. that currently provides access all over the place unlike what they are telling you. there is no north-south access, but there isn't hardly any place you can't walk up and enjoy the campus. and even though they've got separations, it has always been open to the public, and family,

and dogs, pets, everyone uses it all the time and has for years. and it has always been welcomed. if they get away with this mess, you will have no more housing in comparison to what you would get with the existing premises. therefore, that is what i urge you to do. it will give you 100% of the characteristics of the historic site and it would remain the same. it provides up to 744 units of housing. it doesn't promote any commercial -- it builds them in three years instead of seven. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i will remind members of the public that we are accepting comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the environmental impact report, not the project itself.

>> hello, commissioners. >> overhead,, please." had. >> thank you. i am a resident of laurel heights pic first thing i want to ask is you strongly consider the granting of the 15 day extension to the due date. is a very lengthy and complex document that came out right before the holidays. we are being asked to respond by christmas eve. a few more weeks will not kill the project. secondly, i wanted to show pictures. these pictures and the listing in the california register of historical resources after the unanimous support by the historic resources commission at their may hearing speak for themselves. the historic preservation commissioner further reinforces comments at the recent december 5th hearing. not much needs to be said. the commissioner spoke more eloquently and with more