what has failed to be done in this environmental impact report is to fully understand and be informed of that relationship between jobs, housing, and transit. and we really do know who we house in affordable housing. we really do. we don't house young people in senior housing. we don't house well people in aids housing. we really have that figured out. we know how to do that and we to do that and it's a disservice, sir, for you to imply that we don't. it's beyond a disservice. >> calvin, one of the things we ⌞> calvin, one of the things we should look at to make sure because when one person has a two-bedroom, how do you explain that affordable housing? how can you get no one to address that issue? one person gets a two-bedroom affordable housing, tell me,

calvin. you've been around a long time, you would know. >> that is not part of the housing element. commissioner lee: one person gets away with it, how do you know other people don't get away with it? >> i have know idea if the children went to college. i have no idea what you're talking about. but your assertion that we have no idea who is in affordable -- annual reports are required and done -- commissioner lee: the mayor's office was asked to give us information. [inaudible] >> let's not have an argument on this one, mr. welsh. do you really want to go there? commissioner antonini: we want to talk about the accuracy of the report and the only thing i would say is that i did not see in some of the talk about

special needs, i didn't see a comparison of our special needs relative to other parts of the bay area and other parts of the country, and i guess some kind of an assessment of our special needs population relative to those other areas and, you know, any kind of causative factors to why that's the case. i think that's important to know. the other thing was the comment period. and i know there have been some discussions about extending it, and i would be in favor of the 90 days, the extension which would be, i think, september 30, i believe it began on june 30. the one caveat i have and maybe you can answer it, i mentioned this earlier, is there a threat of some funding if we go too long, but again the entire housing element goes on, this is only the deir. and my concern is this, as we know, we went through a long

process to get 2004 passed and it was challenged in court and the challenge was sustained and so, therefore, we have to make sure that whatever is in this document addresses what the basis of the challenge is and it is a long and complicated document and actually, some of the housing element isn't even finished yet but the analysis is. so one point made by some of the commentors was we want to make sure the actual -- most of the comment of -- content of the housing element is pretty well complete, so we know you can assess its impacts. >> i think there's a misunderstanding about that. the reason it's a draft is because you've not approved the e.i.r. you can't approve a final version of anything. it is the department review under state law and why it's entitled the draft. the draft is complete as far as our proposed language.

>> thanks. president miguel: commissioner olague. [inaudible] commissioner olague: there doesn't seem to be a support for 90 days but i'll encourage 60 days, then. the end of august, the last day of august. as some kind of a compromise because i do believe -- president miguel: motion? commissioner olague: a motion, i guess. it's not a motion, i'd just like to request it. >> consensus. >> commissioners, from your comments and the president can make that determination and direct staff to extend the comment period. >> and i started that discussion with that and would ask to extend the comment

period until the last day of august. >> yes. and just for the record, this is sarah jones from the major environmental analysis session of the planning department and am also acting for the e.r.o. at this time and we will extend the comment period to august 31. i don't know what day of the week that is. commissioner olague: i thank mr. welsh for his comments for clarifying things. president miguel: thank you. we will take a 15-minute break. commissioner olague: thank number 11. general plan amendment updating environmental protection element, maps one and two. >> good evening. i'm with the department. this case is a proposed amendment of the general plan. it contains several maps showing noise levels throughout the city. they were created in 1974. the proposal for you today is just to amend the maps so they

reflect current noise levels. it contains the city's policies reducing noise impact and enforcing noise emission standards to reduce conflicts between different land uses. conflicts can be reduced through planning, architectural design and acoustical standards. the elements includes two noise maps. the first on the left shows background noise level throughout city. the map on the right shows thoroughfield noise levels and again they were put together in 19674. -- 1974. the policy on the noise maps were used by agencies to enforce noise control standards. it includes the department of public health. the department of building

inspection. the police department and the entertainment chigs. -- commission. they are also used to implelt the state building code requirements for construction of new residential builds where the background noise eck seeds 60 december -- exceeds 60 decibels. there have been improvements in measuring and monitoring noise levels since then. so the city has actually been working on updating these maps for a number of years. in the fall of 2008, the city adopted an updated noise control ordinance which is contained in article 29 of the police code. the previous version of the ordinance, which is enforced by the department of public health, was essentially unenforceable because the noise standards were tied to zoning regulations that

were in place in the 1970's, many of which no longser exist. the recently adopted police code divide it into three categories. residential, commercial and industrial and public uses. also amended the way the day city uses land levels. charles foster and associates developed maps of the background noise levels. e.p.w. verified the noise levels contained in the map to ensure it was accurate. analysis of the noise levels in san francisco, the department of public health determined that the noise created by large volumes of trucks, buses,

transit and other vehicles on highways and major thorough fairs was the largest single contributor to background noise levels in san francisco. six noise sources such as industrial uses and commercial uses contributed very little to the ambient noise levels. so as a result, since there is no significant difference between the background noise levels and thorough fare noise levels it is recommended the commission revise the maps first removing the old map twos which shows thoroughfair noise levels updating map one which shows background noise levels throughout the city by using the department of public works recently developed map on background noise and this --

this is resulting map that we're asking the commission to adopt. the department determined on may 26 that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review and on july 1, the commission adopted resolution 18126, which initiated this amendment. so tonight, we're requesting you that in your packets there is a direct resolution and border ordinance. we're recommending that the commission adopt the draft resolution and approving the amendment that would do thee things. update map one. delete map two, which is thoroughfair noise levels and delete the text. this completes my presentation. i would be glad to answer any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item?

if not, public comment is closed. the only thing i would add in addition, is that actually the recreation and park department also makes use of this when they are authorizing music festivals or amplified sound because the neighborhoods insist on the reference to background noise and that. >> thanks for that addition commissioner miguel. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: do we take into consideration the noise of the wind? because it looks like the quietest place is the top of twin peaks. >> i agree. >> i would like to move to approve. >> second.

>> commissioners on the motion to approve -- roll call vote . >> thank you. >> commissioners are on item number 12, >> before you start, i have to ask for recusal. the company was actually under contract to tjpa to do some survey work. i think that counts even though this is coming from public works. >> move to recuse commissioner sugaya. [roll call vote]

>> commissioner sugaya is recused. >> good evening, commissioners. planning department staff. before you this evening is a request for findings of conformity with the general plan for a package of proposed partial street vacations as well as the conveyance of that property to the powers authority. a general plan referal is required before any action on the public right of way or sale of public property. you're probably very familiar with the transit center. it will be a new expanded bus and rail decision on the site of the existing terminal. at the corner of first and mission streets. this first phase of the transit center project includes construction of the above grade

transit center including the bus decks and a public park on the roof as well as a low grade train station as well as the bus ramps leading to and from the bay bridge. so a series of strait -- are necessary to -- street -- are necessary to move forward with this project. first the transit center building itself above grade passes over primarily over two streets, freemont and first street. and additionally, the building, as it has been designed and is moving forward, has the complex structural system and -- cladding the building that carries the building out over adjacent streets by modest amounts. thirdly the building, which i mentioned has a train station

below grade in this station as well, passes below the same street that the building passes above, freedmont and portions of the adjacent alleys and lastly the ramps to the terminal. i won't list them all but the major ones are harrison, folsom and howard streets. you have in your package showing all the areas proposed for vacation. i'll just put up a couple of graphics. if i could have that overhead. this graphic shows both typical above and below grade vacations over the major streets such as first and freedmont. the above grade vacations do not

begin below a point 18 feet above street grade so the function over the streets will not -- of the streets will not be affected. below grade for the train -- the vacation is proposed to start at a point. between a foot and a half and five feet, below grade, the site actually does slope from east to west. although the transit station is flat, the street does slope. extends down to the center of the earth below the station. there are piles being driven down to build this so it does go down quite far. the other typical vacations, you

can see, are much lesser. as you can see here, the building in the structural system in cladding extends about 15 feet out from the property line over the streets. again, not beginning below a point about 18 feet above street grade and extending out about 15 feet. it maintains distance from the adjacent buildings. lastly, the bus ramps, this is just a drawing showing the ramps. the structure is -- they are requesting a vacation where it passes over the street for a purpose of maintaining the structure. and like all the other vacations, it begins at about 18

feet above grade. so the street, actually as we use the streets today from the sidewalk up, will not be affected. it will still remain in city jurisdiction. city property. it is the part below it has the being vacated. the planning department, and working with the city attorney, they agreed to a series of deed restrictions regarding these vacations, which are very notable. the first is that these street vacations in the property can only be used for the purpose of the transbay project including the associated ramps and rail extension. the second tjpa cannot convey these vacated street portions to any other party except another government entity that may subsequently operate the transit center and lastly, that if any of these portion that are

vacated, are ever sort of abandoned in terms of its use for the transit center for associated structures or for some reason, ever not built that this property automatically reverts back to city ownership. this is a unique structure generally when we vacate property, they are gone for good. so with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. the program manager is also here to answer any questions. the planning staff recommends that you find the proposed street vacations in conformity with the general plan per the deed restrictions and other conditions that are included in the proposal. so happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item?

if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i assume they are all in line with the necessity to implement the terminal. one thing i have talked about is the ongoing involvement of the planning department with the terminal authority in order to continue to implement and safeguard the public ground as implementation of the street plan and they got back to me saying there is a memorandum or letter of understanding to that effect that i believe i would like to see it for fully implemented because out of sight, out of mind. i have seen many projects go from conceptual design and move into scheme attic design and i'm

speaking from the practical experience of seeing a building from design through construction. it is for this reason, as assignment goes by, i would like the planning department to stay the guardian of how the public ground is treated and how they assume stewardship, the ambitious plan will take years and years to implement but i believe the presence of the department in that department is very important. the other thing i'm concerned about, when we're talking about street scape and you now have below all of a these requirements only five to six feet below the sidewalk, are you comfortable that your ideas about your sustainable street -- your rain guards and whatever they all are can be realized with giving it away in the way

that you do? >> let me just clarify a couple of points. regarding the street scape. we are not vacating the portion of the street from basically from just below the grade to essentially 18 feet above grade. so any changes to the street scape, the sidewalks or the roadway, will still go through the same process that any street cape process and it will come through the planning department and other agencies and we have been working with them on any street scape components there. the granth of vacations doesn't grant them any -- granting of vacations doesn't grant them any ability to make changes to the street scape on their own.

in terms of the below grade train station, it says -- it does have a relative footprint in terms of the effect on the surrounding streets. it is an area immediately below the train stations. so those sidewalk portions are already essentially underneath the structure. so it has limited impact there because it probably would have had limited landscaping underneath the building. on the adjacent alleys it does extend about 15 feet or so into the street. there is, you know, in that case, trees have to be planted in planters above grade and we are working with them on that. but again, it is sort of one side of the street on two alleys for about a block. so i think we will be able to -- a very robust -- on these areas and we're working on that.

>> i would just add to what josh said that we have been continuing to work closely with the planning department staff and the development staff and a loft street scape improvements that were planning around the transit center in conjunction with the project reflect the redevelopment agency's scape plan for the transit center redevelopment area, which of course, reflected and built upon the rincon hill street scape plan so we are endeavoring to recognize the work that has gone ahead of us and how those two neighborhoods relate to one another but also how some of the prominent streets that are planned, for instance, beale street and main street relate to market street. we are definitely continuing to consult and will continue to consult with the planning

department and the redevelopment agency to make sure that what we're doing in the public realm relates well to the surrounding neighborhood. commissioner moore: thank you. appreciate your comment. would you be comfortable if there is a formalized comment in this acknowledgment that would indeed kind of like guarantee the ongoing direct involvement of the department? that would be my level of comfort. it is not a distrust but i know when the technical world comes down, many other things kind of get forgotten. >> yeah, i think -- we are involved because the surface of the street will not go over -- they will still be city streets on the surface so we would have to be involved just the way we normally are.

we can look at them and i think the bigger point is we need to continue our involvement. commissioner moore: that it is done in a matter that would express -- >> absolutely. with respect, i think your question was about the depth of soil that one has left for landscaping. i think the areas where that depth is limited are pretty small areas. we're working to make sure that happens. there are some areas where there will be a minimal depth that you couldn't have trees but those are only a couple of blocks in the alleys. i'm definitely committed, especially with the better streets planned and all that, the transit center plans to make sure that we stay involved in this in the public ground work. >> if i might add, the areas around the transit center, of course security of the perimeter

is of significant concern with a facility like this and as part of that, even though greater levels would be essentially below grade, we are looking another using boxes and beds as part of the -- as opposed to just continuous roll of -- so we're definitely looking at the public realm and more amenable ways of addressing that both from a design as well as a security perspective. >> i'm talking about the storm water management issue, which comes into play and then the new street scape design and hope that you find an interface between the more engineered way how they need to be treated and what they are proposing.

>> as it relates to that as well, of course you're aware the roof of the transit center, the design of our facility is going to reduce the storm water runoff from its current level so we are doing a significant amount both with the facility itself and then we'll try and also reflect that at the street scape level. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i like the design because unlike the present situation, it lets a lot more light and air into the area surrounding the transbay terminal. although design can only do part of it and certainly enforcement is going to be important and we

hope it doesn't end up like the current transbay terminal after several million dollars. my question relates to the connection between bart and the metro at the present terminal. i understand there is a plan to have a way to go to bart. i would hope there is. i'm not sure it is part of this report but it should be there because even in 1939 or whenever we had our first transbay terminal, the one that is being torn down, we had street cars come right up to the terminal so if someone is taking barter muni they should be able to access the trains and the buses, you made comment on that, i don't know if that is part of today's presentation or not. >> there is not a vacat