what's the adequacy of the mitigation as a mitigation -- mitigating measure that's you've presented? >> i haven't seen that. >> president cohen: you haven't seen it. you haven't seen it but what? >> when i spoke to staff this morning, we talked about a number of issues and part of my public comment was to suggest the renewable and biodiesel for off-road equipment that did not reach the tier 4 standard. when tier 4 isn't available, we recommend that the city look into requiring bio or renewable diesel. i have a couple of other suggestions that we think might help reduce, particularly the particulate matter of emissions and concentrations. >> president cohen: is it spelled out in the memo? >> there is no memo. i just have talking points. >> president cohen: let's hear them. >> all right. ok. so, the air strict strongly urges the city to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce particulate concentrations in the neighborhood that neighbors of the project are going to be subject to during construction and operational periods of the project. including the bio and renewable dies

has environmental impact that can't be mitigated and freely admits they can't be mitigated, and chose to avoid communities that don't read or speak english. as you just heard, more than 30% of bay view is limited english, more than 40% of bay view is not born in this country. and the official reason the city might approve this project anyway is because officially the overriding considerations are the city -- [ bell rings ] -- wants the money and wants the expensive housing. if this eir gets approved, how wrong does it need to be to get rejected in this city? the statement of overriding considerations, you know this, you've mentioned every other neighborhood in the city, that the expensive housing is a fool's errand, it's a fool's game to chase that. but somehow if it's okay in bay view, and nowhere else, that's a sick double standard, supervisors, and please, please consider the appeal strongly. [ bell rings ] turn down the project. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, dear board of supervisors. i've been a resident of san francisco for the past 2

and i think that's a mitigation. if you're not going to be able to sell flavored tobacco, you know, cannabis is legal now in the city. and they should have first rights of selling cannabis. so i totally agree with that one. >> unless that's out of alignment with california state law. >> i think state law would require you get rid of that license first, so it's the order of the operations. how can they get rid of the -- >> when you're told you can't sell tobacco products anymore, you turn in that license and get another. >> right. >> i have a suggestion. they work with other departments in the mitigation process, and also work with the stakeholders on mitigation. >> i would recommend that the mitigation piece is part of this project plan, which it's not at this point. so i will recommend action item. and the details of which can be discussed between the departments and our office. >> between oewd and the department of public health? yeah. >> if there are self-things in addition -- specific things you want to put in th

, air quality impacts, and any further mitigations. we will proceed as follows. first, they'll be two minutes for the commenter to present the facts of their appeal, and then, we will have two minutes for michaelly from the planning department to present the planning department's analysis for the reasons why they're certifying the feir, and there'll be up to two minutes to present the bay area management district to present their reasons to certify the feir. we will up have to two minutes for public commenters to speak in support of the affirmation of the environmental impact report. finally, each appellant will have up to two minutes for a rebuttal argument. colleagues, without objection, may i open the hearing? all right. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: the hearing is now open. i'd like to acknowledge any of the supervisors that are wishing to open up any remarks. all right. seeing none, i'll share a couple remarks. so colleagues, at this time, we've had an opportunity to meet with bacmd. they came in two weeks ago with a m

do not talk to us about offsets for mitigation. offsets do not help bayview's hunters point and they do not help our community. they will help anyone from napa to southern san jose. we are concerned with pollution here in our community. the attorney for the proponent of the project told you that this happens in all kinds of projects. all kinds of projects are not in care communities. where asthma is already killing people. you also know that what she didn't say was that although it is a conservative evaluation, she never said that a proper valuation would bring the project within the air toxics requirements. thank you. >> again here i am. supervisors, one more time. i would appreciate it, please if all of you would look at me. because i need you to see me. since i have had to drop somebody off at the hospital. i probably should have been there myself. but this is how important this is to me. i. i want you all to look at me. i want you to understand that this is not the first time or the second time that we have been overridden by o

given year will now be put up in pre disaster mitigation. real money up front to hopefully mitigate thes loss of life and prevent the disaster. buildings codes at local and state level are the key to resiliency. not bigger fema. we do everything we can to work with your federal partners to save lives and stop damage and destruction, but we're just one part of the formula that's needed in the whole community to stop this madness. next question. >> what about federal flood standards? would those help-- >> flood standards would help. a revised nfip program would help. we need the laws to change around the nfip program, but we have to educate people on insurance. insurance is the first line of defense. it's not just flood insurance, it's fire insurance and we see far too often where, you know, people pay off their mortgage and then let their insurance lapse and then their house burns down from california wildfires or whatever it may be. and insurance is the first lien of defense and we need insurance agents and realtors to become part of our arm

by disclosing impacts an mitigating them as best as we can. given the air burden in the past, we used more health protective significance criteria than guidance to assist impact. the e.i.r. identified insignificant and unavoidable impacts and six mitigation efforts. our memo to the board explained should the board uphold the e.i.r. and concede consideration of whether to approve the project it could incorporaty -- incorporate a recommendation to use reusable diesel to measures maq1 and 1e. and the other four air district recommendations would be redone dan -- redundant for reasons in the therein. my staff and i are available to answer questions. >> president cohen: colleagues, do you have question for planning? all right. next we'll hear from a representative from the bay area air quality management district. welcome. >> good afternoon, mad madame president. i'm a deputy air pollution control officer for the air management district. two weeks ago we expressed concern about the mixed-use project localized air quality impact. today i'm here to t

what will the mitigation be for dust? i think there's some information that is erroneously put out there that people think dust is going to be kicked up and kicked around and there's not going to be any manner of checking the amount of dust. maybe you can talk about the state standards? >> wade wicker of planning department staff, president cohen, board. san francisco has a dust control ordinance that requires projects of this scale to prepare a dust controlled plan that sets forth a series of measures such as watering the dust daily or potentially hourly. it's monitored so dust doesn't leave the site. >> president cohen: i don't know in colleagues have any follow-up questions? >> we heard a speaker say by california law there has to be a full 30-day comment period and as we know the last mitigation efforts were introduced to us at the meeting before this. so can you speak to that, please. >> the city attorney may be the best person to speak to that. >> deputy city attorney christa jensen. the letter that cited the 30-day

in that it made predisaster mitigation a priority. testimonies -- congress did it. i congratulate them. they made predisaster mitigation and resilience a priority that now a certain percentage of the disaster dollars we spend in any given year will now be put up front in predisaster mitigation, real money up front to protect our infrastructure and to minimize loss -- hopefully minimize loss of life and the impact disasters have to our infrastructure. so that we stop this cycle. that's the only way we get through it. building codes at the local and state level the key, not a bigger fema. we do everything that we can -. we do everything that we can to work with our federal partners to save lives and stop damage and destruction. but we are just one part of the formula that's needed in the whole community to stop this madness. next question. >> what about federal flood standards? >> flad standards would help. a revised program would help. we need the laws to change around the nfip program. but we have to educate people on insurance. insurance is the first line of defens

officer for the state of california when i think of insurance i don't think about mitigation. >> so as part of public safety mission the c e a started to put aside mitigation loss fund 5 percent of invested income and when i joined the company 34 years ago we had $45 million to make a difference for moving and incentivizing and mitigation for california homeowners to structure engineering a unique opportunity to cervical homeowners to help them to mitigate the equivalent. >> whether an owner or renter i want to find more information about earthquake insurance where should i go. >> earthquake authority.com not only information about insurance but a calculated figures and as of january lots of deductible and 25 percent if a homeowner mitigate their hope up to 20 percent off their premium as an incentive for the work. >> what does mitigate the home mean. >> strengthen, renovate, retrofit through a home particularly older to earlier codes and you put in adding streamlining maybe collar bolts to tie to the foundation or to the wall so it is braced to earthquake can be very, very affordab

what will those potential mitigations be starting with the environmental. we saw this before -- i thinks cumulative issue. we see it's significantly over including its affordable units by a whole 60ers. second the question is, is the e.i.r. accurate? i think here we can see that the t.n.c.s through the san francisco county transportation agency has truly taken a look at the impacts. we'll see the huge size of those impacts. if you see in vehicle miles traveled, which is the mode of analysis see, we see enormous increase of 47%, knock included anywhere in the peir. if we look at the federal reserve study, the recent study says for 1277 units of new housing we build, the price of one bedroom will drop $18 or for this project will drop by 85 cents. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public? please come down. >> just to let you know -- this is in regards to the part of the housing implementation. >> sir, we can't hear you. maybe you can speak into the mic or turn up your voice. >> this is for the purpose of the housing and implementation of the un

what are these other equity mitigations we are able to bring into the picture? not only do we rely on them, they work. they are a great example. looking at what we are looking at in this scenario, especially with the mission having such a large pipeline, and i know we spoke about it many times before , but looking at what the planning department itself used to refer to as the foreseeable future pipeline of projects, which is, at this point, a full 400 units over the highest forecast of the eastern neighborhood and mission area plan. we rely on the use mitigations to buffer things in neighborhoods like the mission and i think that we are a full two years out from this vote. san francisco voters are overwhelmingly approving these new numbers. and i think that one thing i would like to hear more discussion on is there certainly is some policy in place advocates for additional density and building more housing. we have been hearing about that but i do think it is important to note there are other studies showing something recent like the federal reserve study that s

some of the mitigations offered are insulting.an anyone imagine that books printed on demand, videos or salvaged fragments have a brick would compensate for the loss of historic structures? the e.i.r. does not offer a reasonable range of alternatives saving the brick buildings and maintaining their visually cohesive cluster should be a priority. space inside could be public spaces, perhaps tennis, basketball courts or walled gardens. additions are possible but should not overwhelm the old buildings which need to breathing space. these buildings are irreplaceable and i hope will become incredible assets. the history held by these buildings belongs to everyone and should not be taken away. thank you. i have many letters here. >> thank you. you can leave them at the podium next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with san francisco heritage. heritage toured the project site multiple times and we are currently reviewing the e.i.r. would continue to meet and discuss with the project sponsor and the preservation option

to put together a risk mitigation plan endorsed by amtrak. it is endorsed by santa fe southern. so as a result of the endorsements in our valuation of the segment that granted them a temporary exception. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your intense interest in this and i know you've been out there into word a lot of the lines and assess what's going on. so thank you very much for doing a very good job. thank you. >> thank you, senator udall. chairman moran. >> congratulations to you and the ranking member on what will occur later today and the passage of faa authorization, significant factor on behalf of aviation. congress can get its work done. once in a while it's nice to get the end of the extensions behind us. thank you for your leadership. mr. naparstek, it's fortuitously get to follow the senator from new mexico. senator gardener is here as well. it's an important issue for us. your answer was disappointing to me in regard to the $3 million. i'm pleased to hear you say amtrak will continue to operate the line in its current form through fiscal year 19. i think that's

impacts and further mitigations for us to consider. can we -- can we take that same house -- i'm sorry. before we do that, take that motion, i would like to make a motion to excuse supervisor catherine stefani. it has been seconded by supervisor safai. can we take that motion to excuse our colleague without objection? all right. without objection, that motion passes. madam clerk, can we do a roll call vote on the motion that i made to continue the hearing to october 16th, 2018? [roll call] >> supervisor cohen: thank you , very much. thank you colleagues. ladies and gentlemen, thank you. we will see you on october 16th . madam clerk, what is next on the agenda? >> clerk: committee reports, madam president. >> supervisor cohen: all right >> clerk: there is -- there are items 27, 28, 29 we should tackle first. >> supervisor cohen: let's call them. >> clerk: it is an ordinance to amend the police code to authorize a chief of police or the jet -- or the designee to provide signed designation of preapplication meetings for neighborhood restr

theres with not one single mitigation measure we were required to do in order to qualify for the mitigation that was unusual in san francisco. every project along the waterfront and throughout the city, has the same requirements. so long and short of it is, we are right on the cusp of having our publications, so that once we get the initial study preliminary mitigated declaration published by the planning department, then there's a 30-day comment period. planning has to respond to the comments. if there is no appeal, we go straight to the historic preservation commission for approval of a certificate of appropriateness. if there is an appeal it, has to go back to the planning commission. we would hope they would deny that. and then we would go to the historic preservation commission. long and short of it, we're hopeful that every 30, 45, 50 days, there will be another vote, as we go through, march through the process. that's the normal. noticing periods and so on and so forth. once we get the study published, we have a track that we can say, okay, planning, you have 30 days for the comment

the mitigation carriers were out. the telecommunication were out of service and we stayed. we did have to to playback a power in some cases to argumentation systems but we were able to do that and they remain online. >> you'd advocate that to be part of the test. >> yes, i think we should. >> mr. galloway, interstate were doing a lot with unmanned aerial systems or drug development and other things and we have used them in situations where we have had storms, floods and nary various things to talk about the role of us in terms of responding to a box or situati situation? >> i think the role in the use of drones is increasing very rapidly and it turned out to be a very useful tool for normal operations like overseeing rights of way and vegetation management and damage assessment. in terms of restoration from hurricane irma and extensive use of drones and likewise hurricane harvey in the use of densities of drones. i do think one of the issues we need to look at is any new technology like that you have to protect the data from the cyber security and point and make sure that t