That. It does not relate to staleness in terms of the desire to have updated, current information to ensure that we are thoroughly adequately analyzing environmental effects of projects in eastern neighborhoods. We have a mechanism for doing that and that is the Community Plan evaluation process that the state law allows for us to do. We are doing that. Supervisor yee supervisor peskin. Ms. Gibson may have answered this and i think its set for in their response number 5, which relates to ceqa guidelines section 15183. I see this through the lens of what i think supervisor ronen is trying to talk about, which is changed circumstances. So, as it relates to this c. P. C. P. E. , that tears off of the peir, the argument that find compelling when they say 7. 68 visits a day which we in this changed culture is not true, you are arguing that cumulatively, these do not because we made findings of over raiding considerations, these do not rise to the level. Is that what you are saying . Chris jensen is looking at me like he is all over the map. Supervisor, peskin, i will do my best to answer your question. Its in deed a head scratcher. I mean that to say that it is complex. I dont mean to be facetious about this question at all. Its a very serious one regarding changed circumstances. The seek what guidelines acknowledges that changed circumstances can lead to a change in the determination and impact would occur and in regards to a given project. When were in the process of preparing a Community Plan evaluation. If that case, we look at is there anything about those changed circumstances that results in a new peculiar impact. If that is the case, then we would be required to do an Environmental Impact report if we could not avoid that impact if it was unavoidable. An example of this, is when we have a Historic Resource of historic structure that is proposed for demolition, that was not previously identified in eastern neighborhoods, where we took the approach of laying out signature signified newly deterd Historic Resource, that would require an e. I. R. Otherwise, with regards to the conditions that relate to circulation and deliveries, those conditions, as they have changed, and we acknowledge they had changed in relation to the different ways in which people get around and have goods delivered to them instead of going out and brick and mortar shopping, all of that has been reflected in our updated Transportation Impact analysis guidelines which were undertaken with robust analogy. We have undertaken to the best of our ability in terms of meeting professional standards, based on facts. We have to base it on facts. We have these analysis and these rates and based on surveys that were conducted in recent years and not in 2008. I appreciate that and i was trying weave that into my basketball but what im really asking is, ok, acknowledging that baseline is much more significant than what was adopted in weight. You say in 2008 they have overriding considerations so it it was a negative impact and we have new numbers and its a negative impact now so net net its ok. I would argue. Its more negative and therefore youve got to analyze an Environmental Impact because if its changed cumulatively, you do this 62unit project and that 50unit project with a totally changed traffic circulation behavior, dont we have a higher level of impact. The overriding considerations that i voted for 11 years ago, were lesser impact. When i was making those overriding consideration whats we were balancing the net good and the impacts that as Decision Makers we are informed about and as i am now looking at this cpe, dont i say well hold on a second, these are actually bigger Environmental Impacts so am i, can you help me out here ms. Gibson. I will do my best. The question you have as i understand it is what if the Environmental Impacts of the eastern neighborhoods rezoning are worse than what we thought they were at the time that the eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. Were certified and the plan was approved. Do i have that right . Correct. So, if that were the case and im going to say theore theoret, we would for subsequent projects before the Planning Department or the city for approval, we take a look at are there any new Significant Impacts that were not previously disclosed or substantially more severe than or that were not previously disclosed, and if so, then we must identify the Significant Impact and if it can be mitigate we can do a c. P. Plus a mitigate negative declaration for the project and were looking at the project impact. Understate law, were not revisiting and trying to have an individual project mitigate an over all cumulative effect that the eastern neighborhoods rezoning could have. I want to be clear here that when we go beyond the theoretical, we have not heard evidence there is a we have not found any evidence that we have evidence to support our determination there is not a new Significant Impact cumulative or otherwise of the eastern neighborhoods rezoning that we did not previously disclose. I understand that the effects of the rezoning and the effects being experienced on the ground are negative and adverse. We would be happy to talk with the specifics about what are the conditions that are being observed in the city that relate to cumulative effects. We have to identify were obligated to look at the cumulative effects of what son the ground today when we look at a individual project and we look at the projects contribution and if its a significant effect, is the project contribution considerable and must they mitigate that. And so, we are taking a look today at over all effects. We have not seen anything worse in fact, you know, were quite satisfied that in fact there were many cases where we did a worsecase review. If you read the e. I. R. The effects identified are significant and unavoidable and some topics and significant we have mitigation measures to address them. If the sense is that those mitigation measures are not in fact adequately addressing the signaturSignificant Impacts of s considered and approved, we would welcome to hear evidence to support those assertions because we have evidence upon which we base our analysis. It would help to us deal in specifics to understand us. And you know, we are very open minded as we conduct our review and we are consistent continuously updating our methodology to take into account new information as it becomes available. Thank you. Supervisor yee any other questions . No. I guess were going to end this part of the hearing. Now id like to provide the sponsor. Project sponsor to come up and go ahead and present your case. You have 10 minutes. Thank you. On behalf of the project response o staff has done a great job to the degree is just to emphasize some key points. Ive detailed in staff and our materials the use of the cpe under ceqa in this case. The arguments regarding Geo Technical issues are not supported Expert Opinion and have responded about the the project Geo Technical consultant or relevant staff. Argument is been considered and rejected by this board three times in the last three years including last october just to remind everyone. So the boards denial of this appeal would be consistent with past precedent with respect to eastern neighborhoods. In contrast, upholding the appeal would threaten Housing Units in the pipeline or have been recently improved reliant on the eastern neighborhood e. I. R. The analysis for evaluating the inadequacy is straight forward. First, project consistent with the area plan, the density of the area plan, i. R. Do not undergo initial analysis beyond c. P. E. Unless theyre peculiar to a project and site. Secondly, the process students to figure out if projects specific impacts were not identified in the eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. So the only projectspecific impacts that the appellants raised have to do with geo tech yaltechnical concerns. I want to make things clear. First, this project does not have a basement. A previous iteration had a basement. Were using a mat slab foundation. As a conservative number, were saying were excavating four feet but really the mat slab is only two feet six. Four feet is adding an additional feet for conservative ceqa purposes. We will not touch the water tables. The drought showed its built 12 to 21 feet bowl grade and based on the input, the highest level is expected to reach now is eight feet below grade service. We are studying it at four feet and we only have a twofoot slab foundatiofoundation. No deep water is conducted on this site. Our geo tech yall consultant engineer is here in case you have questions this morning. Thank you. This afternoon. With respect to the neighboring Historic Buildings on woodward street, the c. P. E. Did conclude the project did not have the ability to negatively impact these buildings, however, the project sponsor is taking on Industry Standard construction monitoring of the existing buildings and this is to protect both those buildings and the project sponsor, right. We want to understand does the project in fact have any impact on those buildings and both parties want to know that so thats why its very standard in practice to protect all parties to do thorough construction monitoring of adjacent Historic Buildings. I also want to mention that we worked very closely with the woodward street neighbors. This is a group named of neighborhoods on woodward street to protect the Historic District of woodward street as well as the Historic Buildings themselves. And they are in support of the project through our work with them. Were very proud of that and speaks to the issue of protection of those Historic Buildings. Now again, the appeal brings up a number of argument thats have been brought up in pasta peels regarding the eastern neighborhoods and staleness issue. And beyond just this board denying those arguments in the past, the San Francisco superior court has also rejected that argument and in addition that was taken up to the court of appeal and they upheld the superior courts decision and what the superior court said is that simply saying that theres more growth than was expected in the plan does not automatically undermine the use of the c. P. E. You have to actually point toll significant increased Environmental Impact as a result of that increased development. And so you cant just say theres more development than we expected. Of course, here, we dont have evidence to say that new Significant Impact that werent recognized bit e. I. R. Are there in fact, take for example, one of the discussions that staff placed in their response which is based on recent project there are traffic reviews with the t. N. C. And what is actually found is that in general, traffic levels are at the same level or maybe even a little bit bull owe who would have been expect inside 2008 and in addition to that, this project under the old analysis it would have been expected to have 53 peak level trips to this site and actually based on the recent studies in the mission, the conclusion that the peak hour trips are now at 27. Beyond theres been no evidence showing that theres more impacts we have evidence showing theres no impacts or less impacts. There are hundreds of affordable units over all in the mission currently in the process relying on the eastern neighborhood e. I. R. For the e. P. E. Clearance so undermining the e. I. R. On this issue would undermine it for all projects in the process right now. So, in summary, the appellants have raised no ceqa issues of concern. Its been confirmed bit project Geo Technical consultant and city staff. The port has rejected attempts to invalue date all the eastern neighborhoods e. I. R. And we ask you to do the same thing here today and deny the appeal. Thank you for your time. Supervisor yee supervisor. I have a couple questions for you. First i wanted to ask about the agreement you made with the woodward street neighbors specifically, not what you talked about in terms of the Historic Preservation but the traffic coming and street scape improvements. I am just wondering how those agreements will be enforced . So, we have a private written agreement with the woodward street neighbors which object la gates the project sponsor to when they go to file for their street improvement permit which you would typically do and we have to do anyway for sidewalks and bringing everything up to current standards, were obligated by that agreement to implement, propose and with the citys approval we cant guarantee it but we have to pursue and propose the improvements agreed won with the woodward street neighbors and its that private agreement that they have the ability to take that agreement and say we bring it under contract law and that we reached it. Should we not fulfill those obligations. We have seen in so many of these projects that after the entitlement process that the owners sells the project with the entitlements. Does that agreement that wont follow the project then their only recourse could be to sue the current owner of the property . I believe weve got an express provision saying it applies to successors. It does, ok. Thats good. And then i do have a couple questions and geo tech expert who you said was here. Good afternoon. Hi. Greg shields. Thank you. So, you saw the appellants presentation and they had showed photos that indicate that construction at 1801, 1863 mission which are just ahalf a block away have been plagued by excessive water and there are many places in the mission that have in this way and their concern, as you know, is that your analysis is inadequate because weve been in a longterm drought. So can you speak a little bit more how youre confident that were not going to hit the water floor even in good or even regular rainfall years . Sure. Ive been working in San Francisco for close to 40 years and im working actually on the armory and been working on it off and on since the early 2000s. I actually worked on the cathedral across the street from us. Im very familiar with this soil conditions and the groundwater conditions. So what we do is we know we have a snapshot when we do our investigations. Sometimes we do it when its try in september and october and sometimes we do it during the rainy season. We always know that the groundwater fluctuates. So what we do is we take the measurement we have during the construction, we look for monitoring wells, whatever data we have, ideally the highest groundwater occurred in 2005 and then during the el nino years in 1997 and 1998. We see how much the groundwater fluctuates overtime. We new during a drought, we always want to have design for the highest level we think it will ever get. Basically we have measurements and we look at all the data in the area. When its the highest and thats the number we pick for the design groundwater. Im confident it will not come up to the ground because i think theres the concern there is that theyre blocking drainages to the bay and so fourth. As we mentioned, this is at grade. Those drainages, i mean, all the buildings in San Francisco and this area that New Buildings will have some sort of ground improvement, which is what were proposing makes its on i can la fie ablliquefyable soil. So basically the groundwater flows around those. When they mention that theres rivers and streams its not really rivers and streams, its still soil. Sometimes the soil is a little more permeable. This was filled with sand and it was dumped on top of sand. There was in river or creek under the site. Supervisor yee any other questions . I see none. So, id like to invite the members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project to please come forward. You have up to two minutes. First speaker, please. Hello. Good to see you again. This is my second time speaking in front of you guys so hell o i just want to say we need your help. The black community. We need all of your guyses help. Everyone who is white or who has White Privilege. We need your help. You guys are the ones who have the White Privilege of the skin that you were born with even you guys back here. Everyone who has the white skin privilege. We need your help. The black Community Needs your help. I need your help. Im battling homelessness. I just met someone whose mom just died today because she was battling homelessness and they just bought someone and i had to break up the fight because of the anger kind the gentrification that is happening. If you have your white skin privilege that can help our society, black america, mexican america, asian america, indian america, they did not create this america. White america did. And its on the backs of the blacks and mexicans that this america has been created on and it inter twines in every layer of our society. And we need your help. We cant do this anymore. Look at tenderloin, the containment zone. Look at how your Black Brothers and sisters are living. You guys are the ones that can change this. Its not us. I cant do anything. I truly cant. It takes you guys. Please, help us. This gentrification is killing us. The native indians are already almost demolished and the blacks are right behind them if theyre not in prison already. Help me. Help us. Please. I beg you. I beg you. Supervisor yee thank you. So, is there anybody that would like to speak in support of the project. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. Lastly, id like to invite the appellant or the representatives to present a rebuttal argument. You have three minutes. People dont understand that there has been no study about what happens when we dewater this whole area and the cumulative study of all the new building thats have come in since 2012 dew