the neighbor behind, barbara, built a huge home. it took five years and there was no complaints on each side of another speaker, they have two buildings that are higher than what the mcgrath's wanted and one of the people have 3500 square feet in their home. >> your time is up. next speaker, please. come on up. >> afternoon, commissioners. i am kelly. together with my husband we own the property at 42ord court. >> if you are the project sponsor you are under the project presentation. >> i was misinformed. >> this is the second hearing. your time to speak was during the presentation. next speaker, please.

>> i am erin. i am a neighbor of the project. i live directly next door. i wonder if you can just -- i can show you. >> please speak into the microphone. >> sorry. i am short. that is my house and the red dot is their house. i live directly next door which i think is fairly relevant here because i want to share my enthusiastic support for the project and the people next door share my view. it is a good project for the community. it will make it easier for the mcgrath's to raise kids in san francisco which is hard enough. third reason many of my neighbors are in support of it. i have taken a look at the

plans, and, of course, i will be impacted by construction and the building itself. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> sorry the opposition got five minutes and the rest of us did not. that is not fair. >> next speaker, please. >> i am pat. 2008 my partner and myself bought two rundown units on ord and fixed them up. one historic. we didn't need to make it huge. the last 10 years is the block to make huge houses. do we need huge houses on what was a quantity little stairs? i don't know the answer but we are pricing ourself out of our own homes. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon.

david salem at 59 state street in the neighborhood. with me is another neighbor. mindful of the time i want to particularly commend the staff for what i thought was an outstanding and sensitive review of the particular project. the best summary is at the bottom of page 7 of the draft motion which summarizes why this is fully appropriate to the neighborhood including the fact the neighborhood is in the special district. in assessing the project what particularly comes to mind besides well-done is the large backyard, the fact we needed the diversity of homes to satisfy the diverse needs of the san francisco family. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am mary ann. i have lived at ord court since

before 1980. i have been walking the neighborhood almost every day i am in the area. the corporate heights special use district has been in place since the current owners of 42ord court purchased their property. allowing these owners to ignore those rules by saying that it doesn't apply to this project is saying the rules don't apply to them. i am asking you not to allow this development. in 107 other neighbors signed the petition. mr. horn was slightly incorrect it was 108. there is 108 people that were not in support of this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon.

i am charles attics. i am owner of 4 41 ord court directly across the project. i lived there since 1997 and have seen changes. i can acknowledge from both sides the passion that our neighborhood has. that is also an attractive feature, attractive to families. that is one thing that i love about this project. the plan not only is organic to the lot from ord to state but will bring more families, hopefully, like the mcgraths who plan to be here for generations to come. thank you. >> anyone else for a comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards: mr. ho rn when we had the initial

hearing in april did you contact the rent board? >> we have a form we submit to the rent board and that come back with no neated evictions on the property. the date of the buyout agreement was prior to the rent board changing policy. they do now require buyouts to be recorded with the rent board. this happened to occur prior to that date. officially there is no evictions of any type associated with this property. >> the question mr. mcgrath as project sponsor, come up, please. >> how many developments have you done? >> four. >> you purchased the property and there was a tenant in it? >> no. we have conflicting information

that the tenancy lasted past your october purchase date to december. >> it was a tent fennent in it. >> there was -- tenant in it. >> nobody living in it. >> you mentioned the december date or am i confused, mr. horn? >> it is hard for staff to give concrete information on who and what and how they were using the unit. in terms of dates, the sponsor took ownership prior to the closure of the october or agreed upon move out date december 31, 2015. >> question for you. you mentioned the buyout registered with the rent board. do you have any idea when that was introduced at the board? >> the reason i am asks is -- i

will ask mr. mcgrath. did you or the prior owner were you aware there was a buyout? >> we were aware there was a buyout that was one of the reasons we purchased the home we believed they came to a agreement and both parties were happy. >> did you ask the tenant to sign a nondisclosure agreement? >> no. >> did you know there was one that existed. >> we knew there was a buyout agreement. >> your neighbor was in support of the project said he was aware there was a nondisclosure agreement with the tenant that would have prevented her from saying i was bought out. that is what i thin -- i think s for. >> had the house been positioned as two units even if it is illegal and i know we have this

buyout. it could have been announced at the board and you might have known or the prior owner might have known about it, the nda was signed. there was a financial incentive to not have that occur or be registered or have an nda. now you can't create condos where there was a buyout. >> we have no desire to condo convert. >> the one issue i have is how this was represented as a single family house when clearly there were two units and your architect is a professional, you are a developer, you submit plans, you are the project sponsor and registered agent this was single family house and really wasn't. i am not inclined to support your project. i am inclined to you legalizing the second unit. >> commissioner fong.

>> commissioner fong: i am supportive of their project. >> you can sit down. >> commissioner fong: i am not supportive of the fourth floor. it is too large for that area, therefore, i would if we were to approval this i would apply a condition to remove the fourth floor. >> thank you, commissioner hillis. >> mr. horn, can i ask you about discussions with supervisor mandelman. you said he was close to that? >> yes, either the members of the corporate heights neighbors also can give background on this. there were several issues that the two parties spoke about. i think there was an agreement potentially that could have been made between all of the issues, but the fourth floor was the

sticking point, i believe with the community. the sponsor had a potential what they feel would be a redesign that could have worked. unfortunately planning department staff did not find that to be consistent with the residential design guidelines. >> was the neighborhood in agreement with that? >> i don't want to speak for them. if someone wants to speak on their behalf i would prefer that. >> do you want to? >> we spent almost three hours with supervisor mandelman. i felt that we were close to an agreement regarding a proposal that would have allowed a bump out of the third floor if the roof replicated the current roof so it still had a cottage feel

as opposed to a big box feel. the planning department didn't want to go any further to ord court, and i understand that. it was something we were looking at favorably. >> this was moving the mass of the fourth floor down? >> no, it would have eliminated the fourth floor entirely, the third floor forward with a steepled roof with an angled roof, but the planning department didn't want the third floor closer to ord court. >> thank you. mr. horn, just on that. how much additional square footage could you get on the third floor? >> i am sorry. you are leaning on the handicapped. thank you.

>> i might want to defer to the sponsor. they have ran the numbers on the potential design alternatives. again, any additional building volume upfront would increase the variance request for the scone zoning administrator. there is potentially the residential design that did review the project submitted by the sponsor that showed the massing at the front with only the first 15 feet of the building being gabled roof, a higher elevation than what you have before you. this project is very visible on the shared southern property line. the department felt that interaction of only 15 feet of gabled roof and boxing out wasn't consistent with the rgg.

this was conveyed to the sponsor they can talk about how the shaped roof limits the potential programming they want to get in terms of bedrooms from the fourth floor and putting on the front area. >> thank you. do you know would the tenant be eligible? did it have rights to move back here? where is the tenant now? >> the tenant left? >> the tenant is not here. i am not sure if there is any interest. >> please, please. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i would like to point to an argument we use the lens of unit equity. we have a second unit 932 square

feet versus the first unit 3310 square feet. that is concern to me. if i bring that in the context of what commissioner fung said the basic approach to the building which would be more compatible as three story and deals overall with a more modest approach towards overall square footage we are dedicated 533 square foot to a car and 933 to a unit. i think the site is what it is together with the guidelines. i would like this project to step back, reflect on more equitable unit sizes and take a fresh look at how we do this. >> commissioner hillis.

>> commissioner hillis: just another suggestion. i think i don't quite get the unit equity it is a single family home, not a new home. that is going to be two units. it is rh-2. i have trouble with the corona heights special use district. it applies to two unit or single family home. people should be allowed to do larger if they are doing a two unit building instead of single family. that is a problem with the special use district. it encourages people to do single family homes or unit inequity. i agree with some of the concern about the fourth floor and the fourth floor seems large. i propose cutting the fourth floor. there is a nursery and sitting room and fairly large bathroom. i think you could cut the fourth

floor to get the entire square footage of the new home 3,000 square feet and have the a.d.u. that would set it back and reduce some of the visibility from the street. the neighbors on both sides are most impacted by the fourth floor. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i am looking at mr. clifford freed's website. the san francisco board of supervisors regulated disclosure and negotiation and process of buyouts. that was march. i see the buyout agreement was signed september 28, 2015. there is no record at the rent board. >> did you say 2014? >> that is 2015. that is six months prior. >> i come back to say we had air tenant bought out that was supposed to be reported who wasn't.

who signed a nondisclosure agreement. it influences the value of the property and it needs disclosed along with the second unit. this is like approving 49 hopkins where something happened in the past that was not correct and we stood up for having submittal documents be correct. if there is an issue with you not being aware of the buyout agreement that would be with the person you purchased the property from in civil court. can't imagine the commission knowing this would want to approve this. >> i get the point. the person who had to submit the buyout agreement was the prior owner. did you buy the home subject to the buyout? was the buyout in place?

>> who authored it. >> please come speak into the record. >> the buyout agreement was in place with the previous owner. >> did you sign the buyout agreement? no. >> so prior owner? >> yes. >> commissioner richards. >> i think due diligence as developer you get these all of the time. there is a new law you have to report these things when you know there is a buyout agreement. did you report it according to the law? i push it off on the prior owner there was overlap in the tennessee. i find it hard to believe. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: i spoke. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i move to not approve this project. i move to approve this project with the existing house only

legalizing the nonlegal ny unit. legalizing the ny unit. >> i would like to clarify that. the current unit in the configuration cannot be legalized for building code at this time. i think as it is noted the violation, i think the interior heights do not meet building code as well as overall size. some expansion of the building digging down or what is needed to legalize it. >> to legalize the ny unit as needed. is there a second. >> second. >> i am not quite sure what that motion. what does that do to the upper floor of the house? >> it is the same house now

legal ny unit. happy to come back in a year. once the year is over we could talk about a new project. >> i am not supportive of that motion. >> shall i call that question? >> yes. >> from is a motion seconded to approve this project in the current configuration with the exception to whatever modifications need to be made to legalize the second motion. (roll call). that motion fails 2-4 with commissioners fung, hillis and melgar voting against. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: i think the issue is the fourth floor. it seems that was the issue the neighbors had.

it sounded like there was some relative push to move some of that square footage to the front of the third floor. i actually think to the neighbor that is a worst solution. i agree with planning. we should cut back the fourth floor and push it back to reduce the size of the fourth floor. i would move we cut the size of the fourth floor eliminating the nursery and sitting room from that floor in pushing it back and remove the deck from the top of the fourth floor. >> second. >> commissioner fung. >> i am still supportive of eliminating the fourth floor. >> the maker of the motion accept that? >> would you move some of that

mass to the front? >> no. >> i guess we have to vote on it. >> you have a motion. >> was it seconded? >> yes. >> if there is nothing further there is a motion seconded to approve the project as proposed reducing the mass of the fourth floor by pushing it back and eliminating the deck. >> you are taking mass off the fourth floor. >> it is pushing the mass back. >> it is a reduction in the size of the fourth floor by 2111 and pushing it back and eliminating the deck. (roll call).

>> that motion fails 2-4 with commissioners fung, moore, richards and couple voting against. >> i move to approve the project on the condition that the fourth floor be eliminated. >> second. >> there is nothing further commissioners there is a motion seconded to approve the project as proposed eliminating the fourth floor. commissioner fung. (roll call). >> so moved motion passes 4-2 with commissioners hillis and richards voting against.

>> the public hearing with the standard conditions. >> that is on item 9. at 300 grant avenue. this is is informational presentation on the public art requirement. >> i am christy alexander with department staff. i am here with an informational item to review condition of approval for project at 300 grant avenue. i will provide a brief overview of the project approval and planning code requirement for public art. then the public sponsor and artist will provide an overview of the project staff. the project involving new construction of a six story mixed use building which is approximately 94 feet in height contains retail uses on the

basement through third floors. 29,703 gross square feet of office use on floors four through six. it will occupy the site with three visible façades. improvements to heartland place are proposed to create a public open space and streetscape at all three frontages. it is anticipating receiving temporary certificate of occupancy in january of 2020. it required public art component at 1% of the hard construction costs. the sponsor has commission in california based artist to develop the proposal. generally the public heart is 9d

artwork on the north side and part of the exterior thus meeting section 429. the project conditions require the final art concept and location be submitted for review by the planning director in consultation with the planning commission. the project sponsor is reporting today to the commission on the progress of the development andy sign of the art concept and welcomes any comments the commission may have. this concludes my presentation. i will turn it over to the project sponsor. thank you. >> hello, i am kevin. i am with the mbh architects in alameda with the project at 300 grant. a few images of the exterior of

the project consistent with the description planning shared. one of the unique features with the project as she described the improvements on heartland at the north side of the building will be enhancing the pavement and adding many pedestrian features to be similar in function as what occurs at may den lane. to solidify the vision we have for the plaza the project sponsor commissioned a local artist to create a dynamic art piece to enhance the new mini destination. that will be installed on the face of the building on the outside of the structure and it

is anchored to the superstructure at each floor level. with that i would like to introduce ned to speak about the actual piece. >> i am ned con. i do work with wind, water and light. i was involved with the design team on the project early on. one of the goals as kevin mentioned was to create artwork to kind of be visible from harlan alley and from the streets around here. here is a rendering of what we hope harlan alley will look like when it is all fixed up. some trees and places for people to it is. you can see the sculpture on the

left side of the image. it is basically a cable system that running the entire height of the building and attached to the cable are hundreds and hundreds of wind animated veins that will constantly change direction based on the wind and basically give you a visual map how the wind changes with the height of the building, how it interacts with the architecture. the moving pieces have a plastic bearing that never needs lubrication. it runs silently and then there is aluminum vein part of it as the wind moves it around it reflects light and color from different parts of the sky so the intent is to continually change responsive element to whatever the atmosphere is doing, whatever the wind and light are that day to create

something that kind of announces the entrance to the building and dovetails with the efforts to make this alley into a special place. >> we are available if you have any questions for us. >> thank you very much. we will take public comment on this item. i have one speaker card. that wasn't the presentation? >> that was the artist. do we have any public comment on this item? >> public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: is it possible for you to explain to us. you showed a night shot is this sculpture illuminated at night? >> the idea is that it

essentially draws the color and light from the environment. across the alley is try ton hotel. lights from there and the cars driving by. it gets illumination from the environment. it is part of the sort of environmental aspect of art worth. it is entirely powered by wind. this renewable source of energy so adding electrical lights seemed contrary to that. >> i am glad you are saying that. it would not be very much in the same thought to illuminate it. what you are describing i appreciate that. thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> ms. alexander. where are the entitlements for the improvements to harlan?

>> they were approved with the project in 2016. >> they were part of the project so that will be completed as construction is finished? >> correct, in january. >> thank you. anybody want to make a motion. >> there is no motion. it is informational. >> thank you. we can move to item 11. item 10 has been heard and acted upon for 2015-940. 27-8011. this is the hub plan. 30 van ness avenue project, 98 franklin street project and hub housing sustainability district. this is the environmental impact

report. >> hi. good afternoon. may i get the overhead, please. good afternoon. >> sorry. sfgov. i think she meant the computer. >> thank you. i am elizabeth white, planning department staff. the item before you relates to the draft environmental impact report for the hub plan. 30 van ness avenue, 98 franklin street and hub housing sustainability district. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comment on the

completeness of the draft. pursuant to california -- pursuant to environmental quality act. no approval action on this document is requested at this time. i am joined bi am joined by tan, environmental planners. they would like to acknowledge the contributions of alana who is on maternity leave. this draft contains program and project level analysis. it analyzes two individual projects. 30 vanness and 98 franklin and streetscape improvements on a project specific level. the proposed hub plan would amends the 2008 plan of the san francisco general plan. this amendment would rezone

portions of an approximately 84-acre air in the eastern most portions of the market area plan. this amendment involves changes to zoning districts as well as changes to the height and bulk districts at 18 sites within this area. the hub plan area would be designated as housing sustainabilities in which housing projects could obtain approval. i will describe the housing and job projections for existing conditions as well as future conditions that could result from the proposed project. currently 3500 housing units exist in the hub plan area. the proposed 18 sites has the potential in a net addition of 7,050 units. they added 15% buffer to this

number to as knowledge future development that may occur within the planning area due to density bonus programs. this results in 81 8100 housing units. accounting for existing and future housing units it is approximately 11,600 dwelling units. it is noted under current zoning the maximum development is 9300 units. in terms of jobs it is anticipated the hub plan would result in slight increase in jobs with net addition of 275 jobs throughout the planned area. these are the basis for what is analyzed in the draft as the project. these do not represent the total development capacity within the entire hub area since zones is proposed only for the 18 opportunity sites.

it is important to note that sites in the hub plan area not proposed to be up zoned could be developed up to maximum height over time. this was already studied an as part of the octavia plan process. the hub plan includes improvements to streets, alleys and sidewalks within and adjacent to the hub plan area. these include but are not limited to sidewalk lighting and road and vehicular parking reconfiguration. i will now discuss the two projects studied in the draft dir. proposed project at 30 vanness includings retention of the 75-foot five-story building and construction of 45 story building. this would include approximately 21,000 square foot every tailing, 11 floors or 350,000

square feet of office space and 33 floors of residential space up to 610 dwelling units. the 30 vanness would include approximately 240 vehicular spark parking spaces, 350 bicycle spaces and approximately 33,000 square feet of open space. the proposed project at 98 franklin includes demolition of the existing 100 space surface vehicular parking lot and construction of 31 story residential tower above a five story podium occupiped by the international high school. 350 dwelling units, 81,000 square feet of institutional space and approximately 34,000 square feet open space. the 98 franklin street would include approximately 110

vehicular parking spaces and approximately 540 bicycle spaces. the draft studied seven alternatives including two to each of the individual projects. alternative a evaluated no project alternative in which it will be built according to existing zoning. b is land use of the hub plan not the streetscape and street network improvements. c evaluated reduced build out of the hub plan with 7800 new remember units. alternative d was no project alternative at 30 van ness avenue. alternative e was reduced intensity. this would include construction of an 11 story building.

alternative s evaluated no project alternative at 98 franklin assuming it continued to operate as surface parking lot. g was at 98 franklin to provide 47 residential units in a five story tower. it concluded the project would result in cumulative impacts. this indicates the unavoid ability impacts. other significant impacts reduced to less than significant be with litigation measures are discussed in did dar. comments should be directed to the accuracy of contained. staff is not here to answer question. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing and responses documented. this will respond to verbal and

written comments and make revisions to the draft dir as appropriate. those who are interested in comments may submit comments in writing by e-mail to sfgov.org. or to my attention by september 9th. as previously mentioned the planning department will prepare a response which will contain responses to all comments heard today and sent in writing to the planning department. comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on september 9th. unless commissioners have questions i would suggest the public hearing on this item be open. >> thank you. do we have public comment on this item? i have one speaker card.

darren newell. >> thank you, commissioners. good afternoon. i am darren newell. i am a campaign coordinator here on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. i am happy to provide support on behalf of the 10,000 members for the market plan amendment, the hub. especially as related to transportation and bike safety. with the plans that have been presented about the increasing density for residential units to be nearly 11,000 spaces we greatly appreciate the designs for new bikeways on 13th street between valencia and fulsome streets and mission and 13th

street intersections. in addition to the bicycle infrastructure improvement we are engaging with the vanness team for over a year and we are pleased to be it is encouraged for bicycle commuting and exceeding the coated for bicycle parking including plans for the market streets. they are really big steps to make progress towards our goals. we see the sunday plan in the -- the hub plan to be expanding the exists bicycle network and move towards a safe bikable neighborhood. it is add cat and complete to move -- it is adequate and complete. i thank the planning staff and community partners for working with us on the bicycle elements

of the plan. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am caroline kennedy from the improvement club. i oppose the up zoning of the hub plan area as it standing today owing to the impact on the already over burdened muni transit system. the environmental impact report is ex as ustive. they have missed the impacts of transit underground. we need to dig into the market street tunnel before this goes forward. when the current state of muni. i commuted to work until 2017 and still regularly ride muni. i experienced delays and lack of

on time performance. i am sure everyone has been delayed by traffic in the tunnel. >> at rush hour i expect when i leave here i will be on the platform playing sardines or not able to get on a train at all. i often walk back from this area of town. no surprise. sf m.t.a. shows the streetcars running through the tunnel have an average weekday ridership of 173,500 people, up 16% from 2015. in the past year the streetcars had an on time performance of 41%. that is less than half of the muni official on time target of 85%. the chart attached to the hand out shows more detail there. sf m.t.a. is unable to increase

capacity and performance to mead today's demand. last week apply board gave feedback to approve the j church line. they clarified this will not address the much larger issue of the municipal me metro speed. the tun was was -- tunnel speeds are lower owing to the traffic. you all know the epic system melt down on april 26 this year revealed how fragile the tunnel is. we asked the players how they will fix the tunnel. they told us a projected is on the books that will take 20 to 30 years to complete. here we are today in san francisco we are frustrated,

acangry and tired of the overcrowding. do you want to throw more gasoline buy approving 8,000 more units? please delay and ask planning staff to identify the impacts of increased population on the muni metro and recommend ways to create it. thank you very much. >> next speaker. i will read off more speaker cards. caroline kennedy, belinda and randy rollin son. >> commissioners i am jim has. i live at 100 vanness and i am on the board much the civic center district. i participated in the years it took to do the octavia plan. i am well aware of the plan and the call for high rise

residential buildings on the market. i think what is before you enhances what was prepared before. i am enthusiastic about it as a resident. we have quite a significant remember population there. there needs to be more to populate is empty stores in the area and to help make the area safe. my only concern is that the dir does not really mention the vanness market transit station. it appears the development proposals submitted are not going to try as private developers to re-do the entranceways which i hoped they might do because that would make them a much more pleasant access

to the station. i am hopeful that the -- i think the concrete or stone entranceways all need to be replaced. they are very old style, 1970s, way to do it. in the past they replaced those with a fence-like structure which is transparent to make them safer. graffiti can't be put on them. i want to be sure there is nothing in this that would make doing that further environmental review. the internal part of the station may need to be modified to improve access to the trains. i want to make sure that the c.i.a. covers that or in no way

impedes that happening. i think it is an accurate and complete document. i think temperature proposed changes would be good for where i live. thank you. >> next speaker, please. i am head of school in hayes valley. i want to thank commissioners for time and planning for work on the hub project and draft e.i.r. that we believe is adequate and complete. we had other speakerrers today who were going to speak to children's experience they had to pick them up from school so you are left with me. our school moves to hayes valley in 1997, a different place at the time. we are part of the urban

landscape. we have a robust scholarship program for area students. since moving in 1997 we have developed a number of new facilities including arts pavilion and preschool at 1155 page. we believed international high school should have its own home. we have been hoping to build the flu facility since we -- new facility since seven years ago. due to construction costs rising over 50% since 2012 that is not economically feasible for our school. this makes the project possible for us. the city's decision to up zone the hub to create more housing near transit enabled us to move forward to a project to benefit more constituencies. we see more families in the

neighborhood and we hope it night support additional families. we believe the mixed use development a first of its kind in san francisco is the future of intelligent land use. we support meeting the affordable housing goals and we employees and families who have taken advantage of those programs. with the draft e.i.r. studied and costs continue to rise we hope the commission moves to certify to benefit current and future generations of students and those in san francisco. strange you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith. san francisco housing coalition. i saw a crazy tweet from a "new york times" reporter saying the city of moscow has 21 tunnels being dug out for underground

subways and 80 stations opened since 2010. we are a constant believer we need to expand muni. they have opened 80 stations in a decade. it is remarkable. [please stand by]

>> i'd also like to point out that there's concerns about affordable housing. there's some 3500 units there now, and demolition of those units, are they sound units? we would not want to lose those units. 15,700 new residence.

if only 10% of them get a delivery of a meal a day, if only 10% of them get a package a day and i'm talking now about the kinds of impacts that neema talked about here from uber and lyft from package deliveries. we have some numbers available to us about the impacts and they're not here yet and they need to be in the e.i.r. to villain an additional 2,000 vehicles pulling up. we don't have the street space to those that kind of numbers. i think that muni was addressed. above-ground is also seriously impacted. this is talking about five years of unavoidable construction impacts on muni's travel. that's the e line, 6, 7,

probably the 21. and then of course on muni underground. particulate matter is of a concern to all of us residents and people visiting san francisco. more needs to be looked at there. i'd also like to point you to alternative c., the most environmentally conscious of the drafters here. we've got more to do. let's make sure that we're not creating an urban ghetto. let's make sure this will be a sustainable neighborhood. trying to squeeze it into the few acres that it is, especially in that one location, that's asking a lot.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we're all the way for intelligent design and intelligent development, but it looks like we're putting the cart before the horse. so if we're going to be developing some 8,000 units and adding 15,000 people, where are these people going to be able to get around in the city of san francisco, or actually some of them might actually commute to outside of san francisco. our transit system is really maxed out. then the problem with this e.i.r. is, as i understand it, that the impact of rideshare has not been reflected in the e.i.r. so how could you possibly certify it if you don't have an impact or a feel for how many

cars are going to be congesting this area? this is a very important area because everything goes through there, and especially the lower area, it has become incredibly popular. a lot of people go there that don't actually necessarily live there. i'm one of them. i frequent visit lower haites on foot because i love that neighborhood. i could imagine what kind of a disaster it's going to be for the people already living there, not to mention the people that are going to be attracted to these towers. i urge you not to certify this unless you have the full report. people are not going to just move in and sit put. this is about housing and how they're going to get around. please do not certify the report unless you get enough information on the transit.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here because we are located right next door and we are the only building that is directly attached to the project. so we had some concerns coming in and signing a lease what the construction process was going to be. we feel we're in a good position with the e.i.r. and the land lease developer, that they're paying attention and they're going to pay attention to what happens through the construction process and look at things that our business is not disrupted. we're also in active conversation about ongoing cultural program in the public spaces that would be ongoing rathern