Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, July 9th, 2026. When item is called that you would like to submit testimony for, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, there is a second chime and I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the Commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President Campbell. Here. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner McGarry. Present. And Commissioner So.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item 1, case number 2026, hyphen 004685PCA for the Shade Act legislation, local implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Administrative Code Amendment is proposed for continuance to July 23rd, 2026. Further commissioners, under Commission Matters, Item 5, Election of Officers, is proposed for an indefinite continuance. Until such time, we have a full host of seated commissioners. And then under your regular calendar, commissioners, we have a late request from the sponsor for Item 9, Case Number 2025-010921, CUA 5300, 3rd Street. conditional use authorization. The request is to continue to July 23rd, 2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to adjust the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward

Thank you, commissioners. Tom Tunney on behalf of applicant AutoZone. We're on the regular calendar requesting the convenience and just wanted to express our support for that for the continuous to the 23rd. We're a tenant of the property. If I could, the landlord would like to convey his agreement as well on the record.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Raj Kaul. My wife, Veena, and I, we're proud owners of the property at 5300 3rd Street in the Bayview. Thank you for the opportunity for letting us speak. it's been proposed to continue the matter to july 23rd we are agreeing to that with few comments that the building has been empty as an empty building goes it's inviting vandalism graffiti all kinds of bad elements in the neighborhood it's not good for the community or for anybody else to keep the building vacant. The good use of the building is with the responsible tenant. And we have found AutoZone to be a very responsible tenant. We have seen other buildings that they have been tenants at. We've done our due diligence. And we think they are a perfect fit for the community. So we would urge the commission not to delay the hearing any more than July 23, given that there is a break coming up in August, because there is a big burden of financially carrying the building. We have mortgage to make. We have insurance to pay for an empty building, which is very expensive in this environment. And then we have vandalism and other things that go on. And we want to be a good neighbor. We have always been a good neighbor in the community. So we want to keep the building clean. We have a professional management company. At times, they have to call the police department. to help keep the building clean. We didn't have any of these issues when Walgreens occupied the space. So please help us to keep the matter on July 23rd. Another thing I want to mention that we have been working with local communities since 2020 when Walgreens had decided to pull out of the city. They shuttered a number of stores in the city. And we have been proactively working with Supervisor Walton's group, Economic Development Group. And I'm really glad that Larry McLendon has been a great help. He has introduced and opened a lot of doors for us to talk to every potential tenant, every potential resource within the city. And I'm so glad that there is a pharmacy coming up And they're starting construction in about a week, two blocks away from our building, which is great news for the community. We're thrilled about it. So we want to have a win-win for the community. We have always been involved with the community and will stay involved. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. OK, last call for public comment on the continuance calendar.

So there we go. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Theo Ellington. I am speaking today as Bayview resident and also the executive director of the Ruth Williams Bayview Opera House, just half a mile down from 5300. Third Street. A couple different things I want to talk about today. Over the last 24 hours, we have received about 70 letters from community folks who want to be a part of this process. And so today, I'm speaking in front of you to formally request a continuance on this item. I just heard the July 20-something date, I am requesting that that get pushed to some time in August, preferably the end of August, given the number of folks in the community who feel like they need to have a voice in this process. I want to sum up just some of the things that I've heard in the last 24 hours. First, this desire to not go parcel by parcel in our neighborhood. to determine land use issues or to make decisions. We are in the southeast side of San Francisco, and we feel like we are fighting for our existence. We feel like we are unheard. We feel like we are underdeveloped and under-resourced. And so we need a full scale community and economic development plan. That is a request that a lot of folks have been making. They want pharmacies. They want grocery stores. They want community serving uses. And so for me, that looks like a full scale plan. You all have done that and done that successfully in the Fillmore. That's underway now. You've done that successfully in the Mission. And so I think it is only right that as we begin to explore different uses in our neighborhood, we look at the southeast side of San Francisco for a similar plan. The second thing that I've heard that was probably alarming is that the CAC, the Citizens Advisory Committee, a group of volunteers who step up and step to listen to these issues that come in front of the entire community, voted unanimously to oppose this project. And so there is a whole segment, again, of the population that has been left out of this process that we want to help by way of the CAC facilitate more community discussions around what it means to be a good neighbor, what it means for AutoZone and the property owner to come in and make hard commitments. I think a lot of what we heard at the CAC meeting and I believe two community meetings felt a little bit like corporate speak and lip service. As you know, this community is very, very sensitive about its outcomes, given all of the social ills that happen on this side of town. And so we want to make sure that the property owner and AutoZone make very, very hard and firm commitments to our community, particularly on the environmental side. $11 million lawsuit settled by AutoZone and Attorney General Rob Bonta. And so when we look at all of the historic things that happen in our community, we can't sit idle and let this happen without commitments on the environmental side as well. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I will remind members of the public that this public comment period is only on the matter of continuance.

Hi, Commission. My name is Tiffany Carter. I am a Bayview native, former small business commissioner, a representative of the San Francisco African American Reparation Advisory Committee. I am also a member of the San Francisco Planning Equity Council. I am here today to respectfully ask that you honor the recommendations of the Bayview CAC, which unanimously voted not to support this proposal. We are requesting a continuance to allow additional community outreach and engagement and to better understand the potential impacts of this project on the Third Street corridor. This is the most visible commercial site in Bayview within the Bayview African American Cultural District. So we are asking that you hear community. I know about over almost 100 letters were sent in. We also have a group of young planners here that are listening to how you guys react and listen to community today. So I hope you guys honor community and grant a continuance to until September. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Tyra Fennell. I'm a proud resident of the Bayview Hunters Point and a long-term community advocate. I'm here today to request a continuance of the AutoZone project, not because I oppose business or economic development, but because Bayview deserves a bigger vision for its future. Bayview has some of the best weather in San Francisco, valuable open space, a growing population, and a rich cultural history. Yet too often our community is asked to accept development that does not reflect our potential or the everyday needs of its residents. Why aren't we aggressively recruiting a full-service grocery store, a quality neighborhood market, restaurants and cafes, a fitness center, family entertainment, or other businesses that allow our residents to shop, eat, and gather, and spend their dollars right in the Bayview? Unlike me that has to go to Potrero Hill a lot of times. No shade to Potrero Hill, but it would be nice to do these things in Bayview. This is valuable commercial space. Once we commit it to a low density, single purpose use, we may lose the opportunity to bring something more transformative to the community, which is greatly needed. Bayview residents should not have to leave our neighborhood to access basic amenities or experience vibrant commercial corridors. We need leadership that is willing to think bigger recruit businesses that meet the needs of residents, and develop a long-term economic vision worthy of Bayview's potential. I urge you to continue this proposal for AutoZone, and I thank you very much for your time.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Chad White. I'm a ten-year resident of Bayview and also a local air quality planner with a public agency. I'd like to ask you to redirect the planning department to revise the report and bring forward more accurate information than they've recorded within it. There are several statements that I find inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. I've only had 48 hours to review this report and provide them feedback on the inaccuracies within it. And I know members of the CAC also only received this report 48 hours ago. They feel like a lot of the information in the report wasn't available to them at the time they made their vote. But they also, as Theo Ellington already reported, voted 6-0 against this project after hearing about it twice. One of the inaccuracies in the report, which is minor but technical, is that the date at which they made that vote is incorrect. It was at the May 6 meeting when they heard about the project for a second time, and it asked for new information that was not provided to them. that they had voted no on the project, not because they don't want to welcome AutoZone to the community, but because that location has a particular set of community-serving needs, and people don't think formula retail is the right way to do it. So ultimately, I think the community will ask you strongly not to consider a formula retail permit for this location and to direct the landlord and other people to work on an appropriate rental rate and a different way of approaching the space so that it serves community needs and find another location, of which there are many in Bayview. for this kind of project. I'm understanding that the local merchants surrounding the project, including the people who are across the intersection, were not consulted about this. There's a lot of emphasis on protecting the building. We want that as well, but not about how any of this project serves the community. So I'd ask you to give us time. I think it would be great to have much longer. I think that it would be great to have this item come back up once we have the election and a new supervisor in place, and that supervisor can work with you on the economic plan being considered. And for the rest of us, just to go through and offer you point by point the information that you're missing in the current report and how it's not informing you about what this project really means. Thank you.

Final last call for public comment on the continuance calendar, only on the matter of continuance. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

Make a motion to uphold the continuance.

Second it.

Okay. If there's nothing further, Commissioners, there is a motion to continue all items as proposed on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 4-0. Commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar. The matter listed here under constitutes a consent calendar and is considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests. In which event, the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item 2, case number 2025-010163, CUA at 4124th Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. under the regular calendar today or at a future hearing. You need to come forward.

Last call.

Public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

Move to approve item two on consent calendar.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to approve item two on consent. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously four to zero, placing us under commission matters for item three, consideration of adoption draft minutes for June 18th and June 25th of 2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. On their minutes, again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry. Motion to accept the minutes. Second.

Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. And Commissioner Campbell. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, four to zero. Excuse me. Item four, commission comments and questions.

Commissioner Braun.

I just wanted to say that there's a recent news article stating that there are four vacancies on the Planning Commission. And obviously, well, so my seat is one of those seats that is becoming vacant. And my term technically ended at the end of June. So I wanted to clarify why I'm still here. So I'm currently sitting as a holdover member of the commission for up to 60 days or until my replacement is fully appointed and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

OK, if there are no other comments or questions from members of the commission, item five has been continued department matters. Item six, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for being here. We need all of you here to be able to act as a body and a commission. So I'm really grateful that you all took time out of your summer to be here, especially you, Commissioner Braun. Your presence has been greatly appreciated throughout your term and especially now. And I'm glad we'll have the opportunity to celebrate you through those additional hearings. I don't have a whole lot of announcements. One, just acknowledgment, just because I think it is relevant to a lot of the work that you've focused on over the last several years post-COVID, downtown recovery. We had a slight blow. We were hopeful for a set of new owners on the Westfield Mall and one of the big anchors, mostly vacant anchors, at the corner of our downtown. We now are at a place where we don't have new ownership again. The deal that was... hopeful to move forward there has fallen through. So I just want to acknowledge that I know our office at the planning department, OEWD, and the mayor's office will be looking to see if there are other moves the city can make to hopefully support the next evolution of what that center becomes. We'll be doing a postmortem on what happened here and if there's anything the city can do in terms of the ground lease with the school district, in terms of allowable land uses on the site that will hopefully provide a path for another future owner, and we'll look into that. On a more upbeat note, One City Day is this Saturday, July 11th. Really excited to have a number of you joining us. The Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection will be volunteering under First Lady Becca Prada's leadership in the Tenderloin. We've had so many sign-ups for that, including our commissioners, that there are actually three projects in the Tenderloin we'll be splitting up and working on. Really excited to be rolling up our sleeves and supporting a neighborhood that we've worked on a planning focus for a number of years. So thank you for your participation in that. We're very excited. And then my last announcement is about our intern program. I've previously mentioned that we have summer college and high school interns at the planning department. We have a total of 45 interns this year, which is really exciting, 24 interns from the Young Planners program, 10 interns from the Neighborhood X Labs or NXL program, which is sponsored by one of our partners and equity council commissioners. And we have 11 college interns. So we have a number of those here today. I'm hopeful. I can't name them all because you can see how strong our internship program is. For those of you that aren't already standing, can those of you participating in our intern programs, all three of them, stand so the commission can greet you and thank you? We're really lucky to have this human power behind us. You can sit. You don't have to stand the whole time. Thank you. That was amazing. I think just a couple words about the program itself. They're with us till the end of July. They're documenting their adventures around the city on Instagram. So we'll send you some of those posts so you can see what they're doing. They will be presenting their final projects on July 31st. So we can give you an update on that on your commission hearing on the 31st. We're really lucky to have them. You saw how many people we have. What you don't see when they just stand up is the energy that they're bringing both to planning and throughout the city on the projects they're working on. One would think with all of these brains, we could pretty much fix planning over the summer. Maybe we will. I'll let you know on the 31st. But we're really lucky to have them all here. Thank you for being here today and for being with us this summer.

That's all we have. We're delighted to have you. Thank you. Do you mind if I say something? I'm getting really excited about seeing. Stop mumbling here. Welcome to San Francisco if you travel afar to get this internship, but also welcome to the city and county of San Francisco City Hall. I have been following and full supporter of our internship program for many years. I frequently show up at your final presentation. So I look forward to continue to do so. And I need to give a shout out for our amazing staff that relentlessly every year take on this responsibility. I see Tina is sitting there, if you can stand up. Just to make sure we gave you the proper you know, recognition and the rest of her staff that are helping her. I always enjoy the level of joy and also seriousness that each of you are going to take on to different segments of our planning department. ranging from long-range planning to current planning to some of our policy and all the way to historic preservation. So I look forward to see your final product, and welcome to San Francisco. And if you need to know further more about anything, I think I offer myself and also maybe my colleague. We're no strangers. You can email us with our public email. So... Then we can say, yeah, I'm just really happy to see we have such a robust cohort this year. I think it's really well spread of diversity and demographics. So I'm really happy to see that. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Commissioner So.

Okay, commissioners, item seven, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. I have no report from the Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday. Last week, the Land Use Committee amended the cannabis cafe ordinance to ensure that cafes are not within 600 feet of a competing retailer. Additionally, the ordinance was amended to clarify the coordination between the Office of Cannabis and the Planning Department. They forwarded the item to the full board without recommendation. and the item passed first read this week. The Land Use Committee also incorporated your amendments to the hotel uses in RH District and continued the item for one week because the amendments were considered to be substantive. Also, Supervisor Walton shared that he was accepting your recommendation for laboratory uses in the UMU. However, the Land Use Committee forwarded the item without amendments to the full board with positive recommendation. The item passed first read this week. The Land Use Committee also recommended to amend the Institutional Master Plan Requirements Ordinance to make the exemption for postsecondary educational institutions within C3 districts temporary through 2032. They then continued the item to the call of the Chair. The full board continued the modify reporting requirements for two weeks to July 14th to allow for more discussions with the community. If there are no questions, commissioners, oh, I'm sorry. There was one more report. Last Thursday, the Government Audit and Oversight Committee approved the Inclusionary Housing Program updates and reductions. impact fee reductions with the planning commission's recommended modifications and referred to the full board with positive recommendation. So now, if there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment at this time. Members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission, except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commissioners. Under general public comment, you need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 8, case number 2023-005370ENV for the PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project. This is for your consideration of the final environmental impact report. Please note that the public hearing on the draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the draft EIR ended on May 19, 2025. Public comment will be received at this time. However, those comments submitted will not be included in the final environmental impact report.

Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Julie Moore, planning department staff and environmental coordinator for the PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project. The item before you today is certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, prepared for the proposed project. Certification indicates that the EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and San Francisco's local procedures for implementing CEQA, and that the EIR is adequate, accurate, and complete. This is not an approval action of the project, and the Planning Commission does not have any project approvals. Today I'll present a brief summary of the project and several minor refinements to the project description that were included in the responses to comments document. I will also recap key draft EIR findings before providing an overview of the draft EIR comments and the responses to those comments. I'll end with a timeline of the EIR process and staff's recommendation for certification of the final EIR. The project is the city's proposed purchase of PG&O-owned electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure, referred to as the assets, needed for the city to provide electric service to customers in San Francisco. The project would result in two separate systems generally divided along the San Francisco-San Mateo County border. The city would own, operate, and maintain the electricity grid in San Francisco and would provide service to San Francisco customers. PG&E would continue to provide electric service to its customers outside of San Francisco and natural gas services. The purchase of assets, however, in itself does not result in physical changes requiring environmental review. However, because construction, either new construction or modification of existing facilities, would be needed to separate the acquired assets from PG&E's electricity grid outside of San Francisco, the project would result in physical changes to the environment. The draft EIR evaluates the environmental impact where these physical changes would occur. primarily in the southern part of San Francisco and northern part of the cities of Brisbane and Daly City. The EIR is both a program and project level EIR, depending upon the project component and the level of detail available at this time. The first three components on this slide are analyzed at a more detailed project level. This includes separating and reconfiguring PG&E's Martin substation in Brisbane, so one portion would serve San Francisco and the other San Mateo County. This would include installation of new transformers, circuit breakers, switchgear buildings, revenue meters, and a control house. The project also includes a variant to the substation separation. This would be to instead construct a new substation on the adjacent Daly City yard. Distribution express feeders are proposed to deliver electricity from Martin to areas in southwestern San Francisco. And the remaining components are analyzed at a more general program level. This includes separating local overhead and underground distribution lines around the County border, reinforcing the system and locations to maintain reliability, new service yards, a control center, and telecommunications equipment. As discussed, the project would be located near the county border, shown here in the dashed black line. The Martin substation is located at the red dot in Brisbane and the distribution express feeders would extend from there along the alignment shown in the dashed red line. Local distribution system separation would occur within the shaded areas and system reinforcements would occur within the areas outlined in yellow. In response to comments, the project description was refined to slightly expand the Martin substation project site, which I'll show in the next slide, to add potential construction staging area within the Bayland site, and to clarify that the boundaries of the system reinforcement locations shown on the previous slide do not include waters. This figure shows the slight expansion of the Martin substation site to the west of the red dash line to the area outlined in pink. The new proposed Bayland staging area would be located across Bayshore Boulevard to the east. The area shaded in blue on the west, the daily city yard, could be used for construction staging or as a location of a new substation, which was analyzed as a variant to the project in the EIR. As discussed in Chapter 8 of the Responses to Comments document, these project refinements are not significant new information and do not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would trigger recirculation. Now I'll just go over a brief summary of the findings of the draft EIR. The draft EIR found the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction and operational noise, even with the application of mitigation measures. The draft EIR and initial study also identified construction-related impacts on noise and vibration, air quality, biological resources, cultural, tribal, and paleontological resources, that could be significant but mitigated to a less than significant level. All other impacts of the project were found to be less than significant or result in no impact. Now, turning to the responses to comments document, PG&E and the Coalition of California Utility Employees submitted the bulk of comments on the draft EIR, covering nearly every environmental topic. We also received comments from several agencies and approximately 70 public power supporters. I'll address some of these topics in the additional analyses we performed in the following slides. So as discussed previously, the only significant and unavoidable impacts related to the project are noise. The EIR conservatively assumes that the loudest equipment would operate at the edge of the property. Comments on transformer noise led to revised calculations. Additional construction noise analysis revisions were made to conform to an update to the San Francisco noise ordinance and also to revise measurements to sensitive receptor locations. These revisions do increase noise levels at certain receptors, but impacts would not be substantially more severe than disclosed in the draft EIR and no new mitigation measures are needed to address project construction noise. The Martin substation and Daly City Yard are located on the site of a former manufactured gas plant, and site cleanup is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Commenters claim the draft EIR does not adequately analyze or mitigate for the potential release of hazardous materials, including soil vapor intrusion. San Francisco Planning and our consultants met with the DTSC to clarify its regulatory pathways for oversight of any proposed activities on the site and supplemented our impact analysis to demonstrate how existing regulations are designed to protect human health and the environment during construction and operation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. And although the project site would be primarily located on developed sites and within the public right-of-way, some project locations are near open areas by San Bruno Mountain or Lake Merced. Commenters identified potential impacts on crotchus bumblebee and obscure bumblebee. Additional technical study confirmed the EIR conclusions that impacts on these species would be less than significant. Further responses address how mitigation measures for nesting bird and special status butterflies provide for pre-construction surveys, protection measures, and clear performance standards to reduce potential impacts. Other responses add additional background information to cultural resources setting considered lacking by the commenters to support the EIR findings. In summary, none of the comments on the draft EIR identified any new significant impacts of the project. The draft EIR also included alternatives that would reduce the environmental impacts of the project, as shown on the top. Commenters suggest other alternatives that are either similar to the alternatives considered or would not reduce the environmental effects of the project or would not meet or substantially meet project objectives. So no revisions were made to the draft EIR alternatives. Finally, this slide shows the draft EIR process. The EIR was published on March 19, and the comment period ended on May 19, 2025. We published the Responses to Comments document on June 25, 2026, which together with the draft constitutes the final EIR. This week we've received approximately 20 emails in support of the project, and yesterday we received letters from two parties that commented on the draft EIR. The city team has reviewed those. One point we'd like to address is regarding the notice, and the agenda notice provided for this hearing complies with CEQA and Chapter 31 because it includes a description of appeal rights and timelines. Otherwise, we stand by our responses to comments and be happy to answer any questions from the Commission. And today, the Commission will consider whether to certify the final EIR as adequate, accurate, and complete. As I mentioned previously, the Commission does not have any approval action for the project. Staff recommend the Planning Commission adopt the motion before you to certify the final EIR for the project. This concludes my presentation.

Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this environmental impact report. You need to come forward.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Laura McGuire. On behalf of Coalition of California Utility Employees, or CUE. CUE is a coalition of labor unions whose members work at nearly all electric utilities in California, both investor owned and publicly owned. CUE and its members are concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits, such as decent wages and benefits. Despite these three years and two different CEQA documents, the City still has not addressed several major environmental impacts and public health issues related to the project. We respectfully request that the Commission continue the hearing on the project until the errors in the environmental review document are corrected and the revised EIR is recirculated for public review. Yesterday, we submitted comments supported by noise and air quality experts on the final EIR and staff report. These comments demonstrate that the final EIR still contains legally deficient environmental analysis, inadequate mitigation, and lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions. For example, the City makes several changes and additions to the project description that may result in new major significant impacts not identified in the draft EIR. Specifically, the final EIR adds a new staging area at the Bayland site, expands the Martin substation project site boundary, adds two additional revenue meters, and a circuit breaker. The city concludes that these impacts are still less than significant. However, the city does not revise its emissions calculations or health risk analysis to support this conclusion. As Dr. Clark explains in our comments, by failing to quantify the additional emissions from these changes, the city leaves new potential health risks posed to nearby schools and residences unaddressed. For instance, the Baylands staging area site is listed on the Cortesi list because of known lead and arsenic contamination. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal, grading, and fence excavation activities present new potential health risk to the hotel and residences located only 350 feet away. By not quantifying these additional emissions, the city lacks substantial evidence to support its less than significant conclusion. The city also continues to defer analysis of known soil and groundwater contamination at the Martin substation and daily city yard. Our draft EIR comments identified that lack of data, and the city acknowledges it. They say, we didn't do that analysis, but Department of Toxics will do that investigation post-approval. This constitutes impermissible deferred analysis under CEQA. For these reasons, the city must revise and recirculate the EIR for public comment before project approval. Thank you.

OK, final last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. OK, seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

In reviewing the final environmental impact report, I thought that it responded very well to the comments that were received by the department. I think the department did a great job of acknowledging and making minor revisions in response to many of those comments. and having a very thorough response and follow-up analyses including the amendments to the transformer noise analysis that remains less than significant with mitigation. So I believe the document does adequately identify the impacts of the project and describe the project. And I don't believe these revisions require recirculation. So I'm not seeing any other comments. I make a motion to certify. Second.

Very good, Commissioners. Seeing no request to speak, there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the environmental impact report on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 4-0 and concludes your very short hearing today.