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 So youre basically saying state law says once youve reached the density thats analyzed in the plan its no longer valid and you need additional Environmental Review if theres Additional Units built after the number of units anticipated in the plan were met, is that what youre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 land use matter and policy is there something the city should be doing to address effects occurring maybe outside of ceqa . Thats a policy matter. But for our purposes here today on this appeal, we feel find that our determination is based on substantial evidence and we have done a thorough review and i do have to say that i really respect and appreciate the comments and the efforts of the appellants with whom we have interacted before and had heartfelt discussions and i hope those will continue. I really need to clarify what im speaking about is in the context of Environmental Review and the state law ceqa which is very different than the broader concerns this board does have to address. That the project that would need to be amended and there is action taken with regard to 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 insi