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 s