So the young people in the front of the room can you have a seat. Join me in welcoming the hefty free bay area and carol lito and stewart fong are here on behalf of this organization. The reason im bringing them here today is to highlight this important effort. One of 12 Pacific Islanders are infected with hepatitis b and one of four of the individuals will die of liver cancer without monitoring or liver failure. There are almost 81,000 bay area residents infected by hepb and are likely unaware of their conditions because of many of the symptoms can be undetectable. That is why testing is key in 2007 the hepb Free Campaign was started to turn San Francisco into the first hepatitis b free city in the nation. For 12 years sf hepb free bay area has continued to be in the forefront in the battle against hepb and liver cancer. They continue to provide free and lowcost hepatitis b testing, raise Public Awareness on the issue of hepatitis b and promote routine testing and vaccination for Pacific Islander adults and its expanding to San Mateo County to serve hundreds of mongolian residents and filipino americans. Populations both at high risk of infection. Next friday, october 18, sf hepb bay area will be hosting their 12th annual be a hero awards gala. We will be voting on the resolution today to recommit our citys effort to support this critical work to save lives especially to in hard to reach areas and im imploring all to spread the word and encourage your friends and loved ones to be test. On behalf of the citizens of the San Francisco and the board of supervisors id like to thank the staff, governance, council, volunteers and supporters of sf hepb free bay area to ensure residents are free of hepatitis b and liver cancer. I want to thank you, staff and leadership, please carol and i id like to introduce our Council Members and staff and a want to thank president yee for recognizing our gala and i want to recognize the department of Public Health has shared our priority with us and we have worked closely over the 12 years. What id like to do now is introduce the two other Council Members. Were a small group. Were a small engine that can and have nine members on the board and only two staff but we do a lot and youll hear more from stewart fong. I want to introduce sharon li and Francis Tsang and i want to thank them because they help bring the resolution before you today and id like to introduce richard sao and stewart fong our executive director and have stewart say a few more words because hes a founding members from 2007. He really has the history and can brief you in terms of where we came from and where were going. Thank you. We were the first city to come up with a hepb free program and campaign in the city and now we have this proclamation we can use to continue our efforts across the nation in order to eliminate hepatitis b. As the greatest asian Health Disparity in the united states. It affects the asians more than any other ethnic group and we have the largest liver cancer. Since our program, weve seen a marked decrease in hepatitis b and our tagline is be sure, be test and be free. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes our 2 30 accommodations. We have our 3 00 p. M. Special order items 25 through 28. Madame clerk. Clerk they comprise the public hearing and a determination of evaluation under the California Environmental quality act also known as ceqa issued on may 30, 2019 for the proposed project at 344 14th street approved on july 25, 2019 and construction of a sevensto sevenstory 78foot Tall Building and year yard and item 26 is the affirming of the proposed project is exempt from further Environmental Review under a Community Plan evaluation. Item 27 is to reverse that determination. Item 28 is to determine the appropriation of findings. Commissioner colleagues, were now convening as a committee as a whole and opening the hearing. We have before us an appeal on the Community Plan evaluation for the project at 344 14th street. For this hearing, we will be considering the final decisions made by the Planning Department. Without well proceed as follows the appellants or appellant representatives will have up to five minutes for presentation. Then up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the Planning Department up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives and two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. Finally, a total of three minutes for the appellant or appellants rs to provide a rebuttal. Colleagues, are there objection to proceeding this way . Seeing no objection, public hearing is now open. Supervisor ronen would you like to have opening remarks . No. Commissioner okay. I see nobody else on the roster. So i will now ask the appellant or their representative to come forward and present their case. Have you a total of 10 minutes. Good afternoon, supervisors. Ie our mission no eviction request you require a current accumulative Environmental Review prior to further consideration of this project. The process of tiering or using a base Environmental Review to assess Environmental Impacts is intended to streamline Environmental Review for a proposed project of current cumulative conditions have been already been assessed through thorough study. This allows project to avoid redone d redo redundant as spebltpects and us process to perform supplemental study. This is all well and good if the base Environmental Review or peir is based on accumulative study but what happens when its woefully outdated or the assessment of mitigation and infrastructure updates arent keeping pace with Current Conditions . For the residents of the eastern neighborhoods, the process of using an outdated base peir while denying the fundamental issue is having unprecedented harmful impacts drowning us. It is inequitable for the people drowning to provide their other cumulative described that proves otherwise. It has three gross options in the eastern neighborhoods and recommended a preferred alternative amount of Housing Units to meet expected growth. However, 11 years later and six more years left in the tiering time frame we have more than double the amount of units in the pipeline, each project another washing over us trying to tow us under. This project with its low percentage of 13. 3 onsite affordability further the disproportionate market rate units and further exacerbate the displacement of workingclass residents surrounding the site. When the peir was adopted we didnt know tncs would exist. Who knew incomes of those coming into the city would be so vastly disproportionate or the highincome earners would opt to have everything they ever want delivered to their doors. The Community Asked for further study but were told our observations of environmental changes has no basis and ac ras data was being used. We now know that our daily observations of these harmful environmental changes were accurate and the data in recent studies including a joined analysis by uber and lyft shows how outdated the assessments were because tncs account for twice the amount of vehicle miles traveled than the sfcta estimated. And still it continues. Theres no loading demand analysis in this cpe and assumptions in the trip generation studies vastly under state the number of delivery vehicles relying on outdated guidelines. Environmental planners are saying only 7. 68 deliveries a day will come to the 60 units of this building with five commercial units. Seriously. 7. 68 deliveries a day. It sits on a zero High Injury Network and insufficient loading jones and a study needs to be done. A recent study has shown the increased tnc congestion correlates directly with the pedestrian injuries and deaths. We asked for a minimum of 80 feet of loading be implemented at the site during daytime hours and asked for Bicycle Safety improvements yet these mitigation not includes not inc. The project learns in the urban watershed one of the largest. Its a high liquefaction zone with the greatest property at risk for significant flood damage. Its on the old arroyo delores and its on the registry of National Historical places and ceqa needs to assess Environmental Impacts and assess the potential for substantial adverse change to our Historic Resources. Despite the requirements no cumulative study and Current Conditions related to hydrology and geology has been done. Geotechnical work was done in outlier conditions after a long period of severe drought. One of the core samples closest to the Historic Resource could not be obtained because the effort was blocked by deb bris. Likely the remnants of the original Brick Foundation which was abandoned in 2016 when the perimeter elevation was updated likely to vide water issues on the site. Within 600 feet of the proposed site theres six buildings continually dewatering the watershed. They were created after the study being used to supplement this outlier incomplete soils testing. The six buildings pump ground water day and night. We know nothing about the cumulative affects or changes in ground water changes in the area because no study has been done. No study has been done on the cumulative effect of our stew we are storm water system along with the increased amount of water waste water and for instance still has pipes over 80 years old with limited capacity that get overwhelmed with heavy rains. Neighbors have historically complained of sewer issues when events were at the u. S. Armory and its about to reopen for business. Whats the unstudied impact of that increased load . What will happen to the surrounding areas and the potential for flooding. Engineers ac knowledge they dont know the capacity of the drainage system or if its properly functioning. The cpe lifts mitigation measures agreed to by the project sponsor. There are mitigations for archaeology, construction noise and scheduled responsibility for implementations but nothing monitor or protect the infrastructure in the area and histor historic and they didnt adhere to the what was recommended to the geotechnical engineers. Sink holes have been appearing that were watering sites. Theyre adjacent to the project site and something we havent seen before in the area. This sig signals shifting soil. It is critical this be studied. It will likely require dewatering of the project site during the site. Will it result in shifting soil or erosion in sewers and affect the gas line sites 150 feet from the project . Eastern neighborhood communities have historically received marginalized environmental planning. For years weve been raising alarm about insufficient study of gentrification, displacement, traffic patterns and pollution and other adverse conditions occur in our community and at each turn we have been pushed off by Government Agencies telling us our observations and changes that we are seeing in our environment are nothing to worry about. We are tired of being ignored. The impacts have been worse than we could have ever imagine. How much longer are we going to continue this inequitable pattern . Please dont rubber stamp another cpe and tell us this fight and its permitting process and oversight will capture any mitigation. If the underlying environmental methods have been used so far for the project are so reliable, why is the nearby arkansas project still in an evacuated pit pumping out ground water and if the same process was used for 88 arkansas is the same process, why do they have to revise their Structural Engineering of the foundation and submit for new plan and new permits . Officials love to tell how the city is striving toward equity even creating an office of Racial Equity but where the equity in asking the working Class Community of color to provide their own data and prove our observations and conditions deserve study the process was created to allow for official thorough assessment not to en den ger citizens and disenfranchise them. Thank you. Were not quite done. This is the ground water being pumped continually down the street at 863 mission. They had a huge problem where the water us welcome back dumped on the street. We have photos. I want you to get the full visual and sound. Thank you. Thank you very much. I dont see any names on the roster for questions. I will open up for Public Comment specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. Come on up. Supervisors, again and again the astute advocates and environmentalists, people who know something about dewatering come over here and speak the truth. We have an an ti antiquated smithsonian planning which continues to approve with shenanigans. This must stop. It is em imperative you take into consideration the cumulative impacts and you dont. You dont understand about dewatering. What do you think happened at the millennium building and the salesforce dewatering millions of gallons into our system. Dont understand dewatering plays a reel in destabilizing foundations. Besides that, in general, this city does not have a real time tally of our carbon footprint. We dont have it. We speak in generalities. The presentation is one of the best ive heard and ive been here many years. On this cumulative impact ive been speaking about for many years and has been discarded. Please take it into consideration. Thank you very much. Commissioner thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, im Carlos Bocanegra in a building in the Historic District mentioned in the appellates presentation next to the project being proposed. Theres significant and unknown issues with the shallow ground water and poor soils on the site. Without a current geotechnical report all monitoring must be included and expanded not just for the safety of the project for the adjacent building and the lives of neighbors like myself. The surrounding buildings on three sides of the project are all historical. Its incredibly important we preserve them and add distance to the buildings being monitored should be greater than 25 feet. 25 feet doesnt include the other buildings across the street and near the armory and the armory is not only a landmark but on the National Register of historic places. Its imperative to conduct a new and current geotechnical report. Allowing the project to proved proceed without this is neglect. And theyll have to take out years of backfill. The original Core Drilling wasnt even able to penetrate the area. The shallow excavation claim is also unfounded at this time. I ask we all be prudent and conduct further investigation before we proceed and cause unintended damage to Historic Buildings and to the lives of neighbors as well. Thank you. In my undergrad i studied with a focus on sustainability develop and have a masters degree in Community Organizing and development and worked for a variety of communitybased organization. With my education and experience after reviewing the effects of the new Luxury Development of 344 14th street and the impact on the neighborhood and community and ecologically. Theres bain total of 44 recorded evicts within 300 feet of the project. 16 Housing Units on woodward street, seven on stevenson street with 22 tenants, one housing unit on mission with a multiunit building with an owner movein, lmi eviction. Lmi building is one door from the Mission Street project and up for sale with the now vacant omi unit. Were in an Affordable Housing and poverty rate crisis and this project should include more affordable units. Second, we all know we live and build on top of an historic water said with water ways used by ancestors. New building are pumping ground water and dumping it into the water system. No study has been done to understand what this meens for our system and whether it will cause more flooding than we already see. What if this erodes foundation and i urge the supervisors to not approve the project on 344 14th street. Next speaker. I used to live on the neighborhood of stevenson street. Im here to oppose the development because it only assured 13 affordablity. San francisco is already a street people cannot live in and teachers and educators republic displaced from neighborhoods and and on top of that as most people already spoke its going to be a hazard not only for the neighbors for the community but im here to oppose this type of development and would like the supervisors to support this. Thank you. Commissioner thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. Ill read some paragraphs, prior to the dropping of the ir assumptions were made to predict the rate of growth in the economy and the increase in population and jobs and infrastructure. Those predictions have been proven to be woefully inaccurate. How can a neighborhood plan e. I. R. Adequate when based on erroneous and inaccurate data and calculations. Were living in 2019, not in 2008. Were living with a lot of mistakes and the calculations that have turned our city into a national embarrassment. Our traffic and parking problems are legendary. Nows the time to stop pushing problems aside by making false claims. Nows the time to stop using old numbers we know are inaccurate and i didnt even know about the problems with the street. No one could dispute the fact its brought gentrification and brought more private vehicles to the mission than predicted by the initial authors of the initial neighborhood plan e. I. R. This out of date, inadequate data and documents must be called into question at some point and now is as good a time as any. Thank you. Commissioner thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. The presentation that youve just heard and the speakers have done, i think have said sufficient about the dangers of the project to the surrounding structures and therefore to the Historical Resources and to potentially to the lives of the surrounding residents. Now, that alone would be full justification for sending this project back for full e. I. R. Instead of relying on a document that was repaired between 2005 and 2008. However, theres another aspect. That has to do with the environmental fallout from the displacement the project has brought. As has been mentioned, since 1997, there have been 44 recorded recorded evictions within 300 feet displacing 22 tenants on stevenson street alone and another 16 Housing Units on woodward have been displaced and so on and to forth. Consistent with studies that indicate these kind of projects incentivize landlord eviction. The environmental question here is what will happen when the newcomers far wealthier and have a greater propensity to own cars and have a protense propensities to use uber and lyft. What is the Environmental Impact of those . This also requires study and urge to you uphold the appeal and send the project back for a full e. I. R. Thank you, next speaker. Rick hall. Im cognitive the stud im requesting the studies being requested be done. We walk around San Francisco and we see the hills and see land and walk around the mission and see streets and such and land. The whole concept of ground water and hydrology and sewer capacity and sewer backups, we seldom get glimpses of that or its impact. Once in a while we see dpw replacing some sewer lines and its all very complicated but yet when we think of some of these in the mission that are 80 years old and still have capacity issues when sometimes we see rain and we see the back up and the flooding and we just drive through it and go, oh, something got plugged up. We dont understand the deep technical issues that require hydro logical study. Thats all i think were asking for here. Is the proper cumulative study of the hydrology of the area. I work in the historic red zone building. I have seen a glimpse of what water damage can do to base manies and basements and foundations of older Historic Buildings. Long before the armory changed hands, i had a tour of the basement and it was amazing to see a creek running under the mission. We normally think it as land. The hydrology of the issue is changing with all the buildings and the extra water pumping and dewatering, etcetera. Now its time to look at that technically with a proper environmental hydrologic study. Thank you. Commissioner thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors, Peter Papadopoulos with the development agency. I think well, for starters its certainly in a vulnerable area and why i think it deserves some cautious thought and making sure were doing this right. This is an area that has a lot of lowincome families right there. As you heard, this is an area known recently for having a lot of evictions. And we can expect anything based on the newest data coming out, such as the anthony domiono study and we can expect the marketrate housing will increase not all the rents in the area but the lowest rents in the area. Thats the impact it tends to have. It will make families more vulnerable in that sense and we we need to make sure were getting everything right here. I understand from the Community Project team that they had been negotiating towards a Community Agreement which included geologic and hydrology studies when that was seemingly abruptly dropped out of by the project sponsor team. So we still would like to see that. We know this is an area with terrible watershed issues. We know that. Its on top of a tributary but the armory has a creek running throughout it and when it used to run neighbors would complain its backing up and we know its going open back up. Were developers. Lets figure it out and get it right because you cant undo it easily. We know theyre about to redo all the sewage system on 86th street because theyre 80 years old and not functioning properly. Giving the rise in cumulative impact i know theres legal issues. How can we do a further study here to make sure were getting this right the first time . Thats what we would ask to help figure out. Commissioner thank you. Any other Public Comments on this supporting the appeals . I wish i could say good afternoon but its not. Im Roberto Hernandez with our mission, no eviction. Were a groundzero for evictions in our neighborhood than any other neighborhood in San Francisco. Over 10,000 people have been evicted. We have over 3,000 of the 7,000 people homeless are from our barrio. This is violate violent gentrification in our barrio. Yet the Planning Department and Planning Commission have failed to address the housing crisis in our barrio. Literally have failed. And what you see from the Planning Commission is consistently telling us well build our way out of this crisis. What do they mean by build the way out of this crisis . By approving more luxury condos and you get 60 like this one and eight will be affordable. Thats not addressing the crisis. Thats not solving the problem. Build, build, build, build. Look what happened to the millennium building. Sinking, isnt it . Lawsuits. We come here today and ask you to appeal. You need to stop. Just simply stop. Theyre threatening. Dont be cared. Remember the wall on the water front . The city got sued and thanks to luis remy and her team they fought on behalf of the city and they won. So dont let these threats of suits put fear in you. Its a typical way of corporate commissioner thank you. Any other speakers, come on up, please. This will be the last speaker unless you want to come up right now. In my opinion there is no housing crisis. Most people are very well housed. Some people are living on the street because they have Substance Abuse issues mainly, Mental Health issues and as far as the eviction crisis goes theres really no eviction crisis. Weve had less than 600 people evicted last year east population of 880,000 individuals and where the millennial building as far as it goes, if the city doesnt have te Computer Software to make correct determinations they should outsource that to International Corporations or some of the local Computer Software to make those evaluations. Commissioner okay. That concludes our Public Comments for support of the appeal. Now well have up to 10 minutes for representatives from the Planning Department to present and i believe Sherry George will be presenting. Good afternoon, president yee and board members. Im Sherry George, Planning Department staff. With me is Deborah Dwyer and jessica range with planning. The 344 14th Street Project is consistent with the rezoning for which an Environmental Impact report or e. I. R. With us certified. Ceqa requires review of such projects. The review must be focussed on examining whether there would be Significant Impacts from the project not anticipated in the prior eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. As the e. R. I. Disclosed, adoption of the rezoning and area plans would allow for a substantial increase in growth throughout the eastern neighborhoods. The e. I. R. Determined the growth under the plan would have Significant Impact on land use, transportation and cultural resources, shadow, noise, air quality and hazardous materials. The question now under the streamlined review mandated by ceqa is whether the project would result in Environmental Impacts that are new or more severe than disclosed in the eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. To address this question, the department has performed appropriate analysis based on substantial evidence. Project specific studies and analyses were prepared to examine the physical impact in the proposed conditions based on the latest projects, models and methodologies. For example, the transportation analysis uses the regional vehicle miles traveled methodology that evaluate the projects impacts under Current Conditions and updated cumulative conditions for the year, 2040. The department determined the project would result in Significant Impacts to archeological resources and construction noise and air quality. These are not new Significant Impacts. The cpe includes mitigation measures identified in the eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. To address these impacts. The department has conducted adequate project specific and cumulative evaluation of the projects physical and Environmental Impact. Thank you. Commissioner im sorry. Could i ask a question about your first point . This is cutting into her time. Thank you so much. So this isnt the first time that members of the community have brought up this argument that the 2008 eastern neighborhoods plan is out of date. Youve addressed it in your response to the appeal in several ways. Youve even referred back to old projects that have been before us and the same argument has made where you did additional study as a supplement to the original plan. But i have a question thats almost theoretical. At what point does a plan become out of date . At what point have conditions changed enough requiring a new where basically option number four or ceqa review where previously identified negative effects is a result of new information. When does that happen . When does that hit . Commissioner before we get into this because its going confuse me in terms of allowing their 10 minutes and we usually have questions after the 10 minutes. So i dont want to break in. The reason i asked the question now is because they were argue the first point and this is what they were related to and they were about to switch to a different point. Im fine to hold that question to the end but rather than you switching topics it might be fine to make the point. Commissioner ill leave it up to you if you want to answer the question and continue the presentation or weave it into your presentation. Let me introduce lisa gibson or Environmental Review officer to address the question. Thank you, president yee. If i may, id like to take the opportunity to respond to supervisor ronens question. I think its a really important one and the understand the importance of it. Its so very fundamental to the approach we take to doing Environmental Review. Where we have completed Community Plans like eastern neighborhoods and we have certified a programmatic e. I. R. The approach we take is the one mandated by the state law, ceqa and it requires that projects that are consistent with the Development Density established by the programmatic Community Plan or zoning do not require additional redundant Environmental Review. Im put that aside right now and answer the heart of your question which is the circumstance under which a Community Plan might require another look and the focus of todays hearing is in the context of ceqa. So as a policy matter, whether the eastern neighborhoods poses the rezoning that were adopted is still working, is having the intended consequences or having unintended consequences in terms of whether thats good public policy. That say separate question from ceqa. Were hearing there are concerns about the environmental affects. If the city were to in response to the concerns stated decide to revisit the zoning in eastern neighborhoods area to undertake a new Community Planning process, we would need to undertake Environmental Review for that. That would be subject to ceqa. An example would be a decision to revisit the heights within the eastern neighborhoods and change those heights. If that were the case, then that Community Planning process would require rezoning and before the city could adopt that zoning, we would need to complete ceqa review and we would look at are there new significant Environmental Impacts that redid not previously identify in the programmatic e. I. R. Or more severe impacts and that would be a decision of whether to do a subsequent or supplemental e. I. R. For the eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. The key consideration is would there be a new discretionary action related to a change or a modification chtd original project the rezoning and area plans. That is the project that was subject of the programmatic e. I. R. If the city were to change the decision on the over arching rezoning wed need a new ceqa review and look at new environmental affects. I can give you an example in that context. Commissioner thats okay. Sit down, please. Im just going to allow for her, sherry to continue her presentation and then get back to it. Let me continue to address other primary concerns brought up today. We want to be clear the current design of the proposed project does not include a basement level for the proposed building. The geotechnical report and supplement analysis may reflect iterations of the proposed project including a basement level. This could be confusing as no longer considerations no longer apply as the building will be built at grade. In described in the cpe its only excavating about four feet below Ground Surface. The geotechnical investigation found ground water at 11 to 12 feet below the Ground Surface and recommended a designed level of eight feet below Ground Surface that means assuming ground water is found at eight feet below Ground Surface. The project is only excavating four feet below the Ground Surface. Though the project may encounter ground water during construction for soil improvements its unlikely the finished grade will extend into ground water the appellant claims geotechnical analysis does not provide ground water debt and the report considered the ground water level data in estimated historic ground water high elevation. The methodology considered variable rainfall conditions to recommend the appropriate ground water design Level Foundation system and measures to address any identified hazards. The cpe initial study con it and you the review of historic Flooding Issues in the area. The project is not located within but located near the sfpucs map 100 year flood zone. Other than this information, theres no other information to indicate that flooding or sewer capacity is a concern here. The department has coordinated with the sfpuc that confirmed the stew we are system sewer system meets the sewer system level of service. We know the project is subject to the storm Water Management which requires projects to convey storm water in a manner that does not adversely affect flood conditions. In fact storm water entering the sewer system is likely to be reduced from conditions as a paved lot because the project site will remove the impenetrable surface and required to implement best Management Practices to regulate any site runoff. Should the project encounter ground water during construction additional measurements would be used to ensure hydraulic capacity for additional discharges and ensure waste water meets specified Water Quality standards. The permit specifies in which water waste may be discharged into the system with a tank to temporarily hold discharge and controls the rate of flow into the stew we are system. The project has conducted supplemental geotechnical analyses and analyzes the soil improvements would be negligible and no reason to believe it would cause ground water to rise for flooding to occur. With regard to the geotechnical issues of the adjacent building the department of building inspection is responsible for ensuring the proposed project does not undermine existing structures. As confirmed by the Building Department projects of this size and scope require special instructions that are legally mandate the building code. Monitoring of the buildings adjacent to the construction site to establish survey points on the buildings adjacent to the site due to the construction period are commonly undertaken as Standard Practice for similar projects and can be reasonably expected as confirmed by the geotechnical consultant that monitoring recommended in the report will be conducted. The cpes conclusion the project would not result in individual or cumulative Significant Impacts related to soil, ground water or other geological hazards that were not identified in the eastern neighborhoods peir is based on substantial evidence and the appellant has not proven otherwise the appellant has to the provided sufficient evidence theres been a failure to meet see qua therefore the Planning Department recommends they reject the appellants appeal. This concludes my presentation and the Department Staff is available for your questions. Thank you. Commissioner thank you very much. Sorry we had to break but i wanted to follow order. I think you had an answer, maam . I wanted to ask a followup question. Thank you. I want to make sure i understand correctly your first comment. So youre basically saying state law says once youve reached the density thats analyzed in the plan its no longer valid and you need additional Environmental Review if theres Additional Units built after the number of units anticipated in the plan were met, is that what youre saying . Again, lisa gibson, Environmental Review officer, with all due respect, thats not at all what i was saying. What i was saying related to Development Density is for a project consistent with the Development Density established by a prior rezoning or Community Planning effort, that project is mandated to undergo a stream lined Environmental Review process. You were asking about in that question there the Overall Development that could occur under a rezoning effort in this case eastern neighborhoods. So when that planning effort was undertaken as part of the Environmental Review process, we developed projections of what maybe a reasonable anticipated of growth that could occur under the eastern neighborhoods rezoning. That was an information we used for the purpose of conducting the Environmental Impact analysis. Those projections does not establish a cap on the amount of development that could occur in neighborhoods and did not establish a cap or Expiration Date on the adequacy of the e. I. R. There is no Expiration Date to the adequacy of a programmatic e. I. R. For clear, this is supported by state case law and it is and theres guidelines when we must undertake additional Environmental Review that is guide ceqa guidelines 16162 if there is a new discretionary action for the project in this case, eastern neighborhoods rezoning. To address the concern that im hearing and ive heard it before and i understand why speakers today and in other hearings as well as members of this board are very concerned about the growth that is occurring in eastern neighborhoods. Im hearing loud and clear and understand the concerns about the affects that growth is having that is undesirable. Some of those affects are physical and environmental affects. What we prepared for neighborhoods introduced undesirable Environmental Impact could occur if the rezoning was approved. The city went ahead despite the environmental affects there were other benefits deemed to outweigh the adverse environmental effects and overriding considerations that led to the city approving that area plan. What ceqa requires is not that we ignore the question of whether there are changes in our evaluation of environmental affects. Under the streamlined review, mandated by state law for projects within an area plan, consistent with the Development Density established by that plan, we must consider did we fail to identify a significant environmental effect that may be peculiar to the subsequent project or its location, the project site. So that is the review we must do. Were focussed on the subsequent project itself and not the rezoning effort and the effects of the city policies as it relates to land use controls within a broader area. Where it does relate and i understand the complexity of the ceqa analysis can be confusing. We are mandated to consider not just project specific effects but cumulative impacts. Under the subsequent review we do as required by state law we consider are there cumulative effects the project might contribute to that were not previously identified. And if so, would the projects contribution be cumulative. Thats the robust analysis we do for every project for which we do a Community Plan evaluation. In doing that, we use updated current information about the existing circumstances that are on the street today in the neighborhood today. The example of the t. N. C. S. We acknowledge t. N. C. S are not a vehicle type on the street in 2008 when we certified the eastern neighborhood e. I. R. Theyre a vehicle type and as part of our updated traffic Impact Analysis methodology we have taken counts of actual projects and counted t. N. C. S on the street in our current transportation methodology takes those into account. Were not relying on the analysis done in the eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. As the basis for conclusion without further consideration. Were updating our analysis and as we have explained in our appeal response, there are no new peculiar impacts the project would have that were not previously identified and disclosed in the e. I. R. The project will have significant environmental fkts and there is effects and there is mitigation required to address those effects. So while the state law mandates we disclose those effects and the purpose of ceqa is twofold to disclose them to Decision Makers to take them into account and minimize the effects whenever possible. This process has enabled us to do so. As a
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.