what is in the e.i.r. is we are basically saying between 2005 and 2040 which we get the metric from the transportation authority model which incorporates the data they are collecting as well, basically, the difference between 2005 to 2040, emt per capita is going down for soma. we are actually study you go, you know, the impact of tnc as well to the extent it is related in the model. >> i find this very confusing. >> i could answer the question if the e.i.r. considered the study. we does provide a comprehensive analysis in the response to comments regarding all of the available literature published to date regarding the tnc subsequent t publication of the response to comment, the california utilities company, tpc put out a report. they regulate tnc. they put out a router in april the underlying finding is the overall effect of tncs on bmt is ambiguous and additional studies are necessary. that is the latest literature available to date. >> i don't want to take too much time. i am struggling to understand ho

the e.i.r. and approved the project may 10, 2018. four appeals to the board of supervisorses were filed. richard on behalf of the neighbors and sf blew and on behalf of the market community action network, phillip on behalf of llc and john on behalf of the neighborhood consortium. they received four appeal letters and responded to comments on the accuracy of the air in the responses. in total the department provided theory responses to the appeal letters. as described on the july 9, august 30, september 10, the central plan is adequate, complete and complies with the california environmental quality act. the guidelines chapter 31 of the administrative code. in this presentation i will highlight the five, 2.5 issues brought forth today and departments responses. this presentation will not address all issues from appeal letters. number one they allege the plan will exacerbates the san francisco job housing ratio and result in gentrification and displacement. the analysis found the jobs housing rati

the e.i.r. n a just and adequate way that put seniors, youth and family first. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, my name is francisco. and i represent the first people of san francisco. it is a shame that this city just had a summit on the environment where the focus was on health. health and living. and what some of you departments do, you encourage death. the indigenous people of san francisco, among which i include the filipinos, have suffered a lot. but they have contributed a lot. we need representatives who have their heart in the right place. and what i see here are a number of representatives who worship lucifer. they are the devil and you don't like to be told some bad words, and i will not say some bad words, but i will say something that you deserve to hear those bad words. because those bad words come from frustration. you supervisors, what has become a of you create good leaders gone away. -- what has become of you? good leaders gone awa

the e.i.r. does not address lack of affordability and makeup of new residents much more affluent. 30 to 60,000 jobs will be coming to the soma making it a second financial district null we figure out a way to regulate tech companies to train and hire locally this will pull the majority from the talent and cause waves of gentrification with people with no sensitivity to the cultural history of the neighborhood. i barely recognize the mission. do not be short sided with the five of the soma community. >> thank you. >> madam president, i am wr duffy, neighborhood activist. sorry to bring this to your troubles. if you like local you would have liked the global climate justice march very much. i don't see how you could not support this appeal. reject the eiei. i am from the market. we have a variety of restraints on all sorts of thing in the plan. those constraints were put on in 1980 based on the street capacity. since that time the street capacity is lowered, and we know of a great number of environ

the e.i.r. should be studied again against that healthy management tool. i want to add that all soma is connected. and building more office space will ravage the neighborhoods. it is something that is terran communities apart right now. we should not let the siren song of more tech jobs drown out the sound of speculation, eviction and the strain of economic activity that is on our communities here and now. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors or good evening. i am with d5 action. all of san francisco will be affected by this plan. i support the appeal. the plan doesn't do enough to make sure that the city shares in the windfall profits that you would be conferring on the current and adjacent owners, developers, and of course, the speculators who are slathering, shall we say. that is one point i want to remind you about. what can you get more for all of san francisco when you are giving so much? secondly, the job, housing, a linkage, based

then, after the draft e.i.r. public comment closed, the project sponsor did move forward and revised design again, and that design was in your r.t.c., which was a normal practice that we do, and we include those changes in the document, and we discussed are all of the environmental impacts still adequately in your draft e.i.r. until it is approved, there can still be changes, and we look at all of the impacts. we looked at this revised design that's before you, and we said it's still fully covered within the analysis of the draft e.i.r. there's no new significant impacts that were not disclosed, so that's what we handed into you, and we would include that in the final record. >> vice president melgar: okay. but the fact that public comment is now closed, that's okay? >> yeah. so basically after the draft e.i.r. public comment is closed, if the sponsor decides to make changes to their project, we will look at those and determine if there's any new environmental impacts that have not been addressed with a draft e.i.

a copy of the draft e.i.r. motion is before you. the draft e.i.r. was published on october 25, 2017. the public hearing on the draft was held on november 30, 2017, and the public comment period closed on december 11. the comments and responses document was published and distributes to you on june 13, 2018. since publication of the draft e.i.r., a number of project updates and revisions have been made and are now being pursued as the preferred project which was presented in the r.t.c. additionally, the project sponsor is now also considering a revised prerchd project, which would include the full demolition of the 450 o'farrell street building. the environmental impact of this proposed project are provided in a revised section of the r.t.c. that has been handed out to you. the preferred project and the preferred r.t.c. would be substantially similar, andit would jgenerally result in the same impacts in your e.i.r. the e.i.r. has provided adequate analysis for the prejudice, revised project, and the revised preferred project. it will not avoid the one

. >> no, i didn't mean tweak the e.i.r. e need to approve it, and start the housing or we need to disapprove it and keep the balance of housing in the e.i.r. >> supervisor safai: i don't have any other questions. thank you, commissioner. i'll just say some of the things that we talked about on the record. one of the things that i'm interested in having a conversation about with the planning commission, for the record, is we've been advancing the conversation about accessory dwelling units. i think there was some misunderstanding in the public or not whether going forward, a new construction that maybe did not have any demolition, we could add accessory dwelling units. i spoke with commissioner moore and commissioner richards. they said they were open to that conversation going forward, so i think we're going to bring that back up because thinking about the opportunity to add density where there is new introduction but not incentivizing any way demolition i think is an important conversation to have. another thing we talked a

the other thing about this e.i.r. and this is some feedback in general from the planning department. i am still not satisfied on the response around the impact of tncs on any of the decisions that come before us. i don't think that we have sufficient data and we can't discuss this issue, it is sufficient for me. it doesn't cut it. if we are looking for substantial evidence of impact on air quality, then probably a per population measure is not right to do that. clearly more people are going to result in more vehicle miles traveled. if that is the ratio that we are constantly looking at, there would never be a significant impact on air quality. that is not the case that is not what is happening in san francisco. i serve on the air quality management district, and thi ths an area of concern for the district because of the air pollution in the neighborhood. you i think there is data out there. i think we can't hide behind should method that we used in the path to determine impact on air quality we need new methods that sh

a copy of the draft e.i.r. certification motion is before you. the draft e.i.r. was published on june 13th, 2018 at a public hearing on the draft e.i.r. was held on july 19th, 2018. the public comment period closed july 27th and the comments and responses document was published and distributed on september 27 th, 2018. since publication of the draft e.i.r., the proposed project has been modified slightly. the revised project would have the same height and building footprint as a draft e.i.r. project and therefore the environmental effects would result in the same impacts that were identified in the draft e.i.r. for all environmentalists topics. the revised project would not avoid the significant and unavoidable historic resources impact. the project level and cumulative construction related transportation impact on the cumulative wind impact. therefore the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding consideration pursuant to the findings of the commission choose to revised the findings. staff recommends the commission adopt the motion before you that

>> there is a recreational dock being studied as part of the e.i.r. to expand greater public access we thought that was important. an important component to getting the public closer to the water. the idea is very popular with mumbles -- members of the community. it is being studied and the e.i.r. one other thing i wanted to mention, to questions came up about reaching out to sea wag. we have had tours with them and we have presented to sea wag. we have offered them a tour and we are trying to get that coordinated. i invite all of you to come individually or as a group to see the site and understand it. it is much better understood having seen it and walked it and seeing the various portions of its. is a park that has been closed to the public since 1850. you just don't get the opportunity to go around it. >> so we often have a lot of experience with pier 70 and they have done an enormous amounts of community outreach over the years, at special events and not just meetings with the neighbourhood advisory groups -- when this comes back to us, maybe you

things i will note, and these are comments i made on tuesday, as we voted on the certification of the e.i.r i would love for the planning commission to think about as we move forward with the plan. i heard a lot in terms of how we need to plan -- build significantly more housing. it is unfair to put the job housing balance within any singular neighborhood. it has to be a citywide look. and central soma and the vast majority of the districts i represent is one of the few places we can build for jobs. i think we will have a job housing imbalance in district six. it doesn't mean we can't build significantly more housing. and one of the comments that i made on tuesday is while i may not be here, i hope the planning commission and their future board of supervisors and all of its wisdom relate take a hard look at site his that do not have -- at sights that do not have proposals. i think given the needs of the city, we need to build more housing and we need to build more affordable housing. i look to you, the commission, to put that directive before our sights. one of the amendments that i did mak

during the e.i.r. ess, one comment was received with general concern about the proposed towers and the blockage of light and possible increased of wind conditions. this comment did not specifically address concerns regarding shading. during the process, the sponsor has engaged the community quite often since dating back to the first meeting in april 2016 and has held other meetings and reached discussions on the proposed project and street design. they have included outreach to all adjacent neighbors as well as project sponsors proposed in the vicinity. with regard to shading from the project, the analysis conducted found the proposed project would cast a new shadow on the future 11th park site. and found to increase trading by less than one% of the theoretical available sunlight for total shading of just over 21%. the additional shading on a park would occur between february 15 th and march 29th and between september 13th and october 25th. the largest new shadow would occur on march 8th and october 4th

next on the agenda was appeal for e.i.r. for central soma. central soma is a comprehensive plan for all areas surrounding much of the southern portion of the central subway transit line. the plan would change allowable land uses and zoning controls and increase heights on many parcels, proposed substantial changes for multiple modes of travel and provide additional recreational resources. the plan is projected to provide 8,500 house toing units and 32,000 jobs. the appeals were brought by five groups including central soma neighbors, s.f. blue, south of market community action network, and the yerba buena neighborhood consortium. the issues brought up include that the planning department did not adequately analyze vehicle miles traveled and the e.i.r. did not evaluate air quality mitigation measures and the planning department did not study the effects of gentrification and misplacement and that the department should have studied an alternative and e.i.r. did not adequately review seismic impacts. the staff showed that the plan did address the

but most importantly, the city's own e.i.r. concluded that the development project will result in significant, unhealthy unlikely illegal levels of air pollution during both construction and operations that would be unavoidable and cannot be mitigated. we ask you, the members of the board of supervisors, are you going to vote to add significant and unhealthy levels of air pollution, likely above the quality standards to the already suffering community of bayview, hunter's point? the bay area quality management district and the state of california have both found that bayview, hunter's point residents are vulnerable and at risk to pollution. the last thing residents need is more pollution. if you vote for this project, you are voting to harm the health of bayview residents who are already suffering from too much pollution. please reject the project and protects people, not corporations. thank you, very much. >> i agree with everything she said. they have some good numbers. they have a whole lot of numbers , but how many certifica

the san francisco planning department published the draft e.i.r. in july 2017 and responded to public comments in july 2018. on july 26, 2018, the planning commission approved the final e.i.r. enclosed in your packet. individuals and organizations have come before the rec and park and planning commission to support the project in the past, supporters included epri, hunters point family, india basin neighborhood association, parks 94124, office of supervisor malia cohen, san francisco parks alliance, and the trust for public land. there's been no organizational or institutional opposition to the overall park development, though there remains some specific opposition to specific design features such as elimination of the tool shed and office building, the inclusion of the porch swings, and the overlook pavilion. >> so to wrap up, staff will be back in september to include two india basin related item. this is related to build of the city, and staff will present the public trust exchange and m.o.u. between the port and rec and park whereby the californ

there's extreme traffic and extreme cancer risk, identified in the e.i.r. this cancer risk is actually identified in the e.i.r. as target our block. i know we've been vilified in the press, as being concerned about views, but it's really about cancer risk that effects everyone in our neighborhood. i want to thank you for the continuance. it takes a lot of time to work through this kind of problem. i want to thank the supervisors for giving us that time. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everybody. so, you know, the important thing to understand about these board of s.o.b.s, i'm dyslexic so i see b.o.s. in my mind i actually see s.o.b.s. and you know these s.o.b.s have been screwing over brown people, black people, poor people, gay people, trans people. any marginalized community is not welcome in san francisco because we don't throw billions or millions of dollars up your butts. and that is what this is about. the working class folks of san francisco. for your billionaire boyfriends. they can put a billion dollars or a million -- y'all aren't that

looking at keeping the balance of the existing approved e.i.r., potentially thinking about tall office buildings, also providing housing as a backup strategy to increase housing while decreasing office. it is something we have already talked about when we had the competition for the transbay towers. those were originally supposed to be a mixed use building. i would like to see that as a benefit. i think it is a positive challenge, rather than creating an overabundance of tall offices , i would like to see a more balanced mix of office and housing, perhaps even in the same buildings, if that is a consideration we can inject. there are many, many green positive checkmarks on this document and everything i have read before. but i'm not quite sure if we would like to go down the list, i don't know. i will stop and let somebody else talk. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner melgar? >> vice-president melgar: thank you. this has been a long process. i would, for starters, like to thank staff for all the work they have put into it. i would also like to thank supervisor jane came for he

i just wanted to show you a couple of pictures taken directly from the e.i.r. this shows that most of the plan is already deemed an air pollution exposure zone. that means that anyone who now lives in the blue area is already exposed to what is considered a significant threshold for cancer risk, or 100 cancers per million. here is where the blue is located. right now we are exempt from this zone. it states that if the plan bulk entitlement were implemented, all of these pink areas would be added to the air pollution exposure zone. as a result of the plan generated traffic, excess cancer risk within soma would significantly increase. in responding to the appeal, the planners have rationalized and trivialized to these cancer risk warnings. but i want to remind you that experts also trivialize the public risk of health at the shipyard at hunter's points. those risks proved to be real and those risk are now putting many san francisco homeowners in danger. experts also trivialize a public safety risk at millennium tower. at those risks proved to be real and those ris

moving forward, when we published the notice of availability and the draft e.i.r., we translated the n.o.a. into chinese, spanish, and tagalog. the sponsor paid to have it translated into chinese and spanish, and we posted all of those documents on the department's web item. >> supervisor kim: and what is the general protocol for all of these notices at the planning department? >> under ceqa, there's no requirement to translate notices or documents -- >> supervisor kim: i know. that wasn't my question. i know that ceqa doesn't, but as a city where we ensure inclusion and language access, what is the department's protocol for when we translate notices in spanish and chinese? >> we translate notices upon request. >> supervisor kim: okay. i think we have to change this practice. there are too many members in san francisco that speak chinese and spanish as their primary language, and especially in a neighborhood that's as diverse as district ten, you're not doing public outreach if people can't understand the notices. i'm not going to quibble over what happened in this particular case, b

and lesbian community that was going to be demolished and worked to delaying the certification or the e.i.r. and we got word from the sponsor that he will add more units. so that's a win there. so it's an example of being collaborative and firm, so a win for everyone. when i got into the planning commission, we would talk on things and we didn't know if anything would happen. but learning from tech, the action item list. i have in my hand, it's four years old, we have a lot of items on it. i've contributed a lot to it. we have some larger policy initiatives that will come out of that. during the hearing, people were talking about housing stabilization. i want to know from a radius of the 5m project, where they're stabilized. they produced a map for me. out of that, came the capacity of -- understanding the capacity of zoning of 141,000 units. subsequent to that, housing affordability study that was a couple of weeks ago at the planning commission. from the things that we talk about, there's a genesis and the department runs with them and then the action item list is the thing that did that.

we are now working through the updates to the e.i.r. and we expect to publish that early next year and hope to be able to obtain certification and go to construction next year for that project. that is all i have to report. i would be happy to take any questions. >> commission -- >> president kwon: . commissioners, anything? any public comment on this item? thank you. item f. next item, please. >> clerk: that concludes my report. >> president kwon: ok. we will move on to item number 10. it is the update on the state water resources control board amendment to the water quality control plan for the san francisco bay, sacramento, san joaquin in the delta estuary. the a.g.m. will be be coming up. >> president kwon: five minutes for presentation. i know yours is 15. please go ahead and expect the questions from the commissioners >> all right. today we will we will provide you with an update on two important issues that we are focused on. improving the river fish population and water supply planning to ensure that we have enough drinking wate

the required measures. therefore, preparation of an e.i.r. is not required. for these reasons we recommend that the board uphold the final mitigated declaration, and that concludes my presentation. we'll be available for questions if you have any. >> president cohen: thank you very much. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i would like to move the item for approval and table items 22 and 23. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. thank you very much. that was quick and easy. all right. we'll take that motion, and it was seconded by supervisor ronen. colleagues, is there any other discussion? seeing none, without objection, passes. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: i should also congratulate the port of frisk and miss forbes for their work. congratulations, miss forbes. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. madam clerk, next item? >> clerk: items 24 through 27 kpriez the third special order today for a public hearing of persons interested in the certification of a conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 143 corbett avenue to legalize