that is what we hear a lot. if you have to increase the staff size you have not less utilization in the lower areas. you have a constrained site. if there is a way to do minor alterations that would be consistent it would not need to come back to us. i believe is 10%. >> i think it is a good design

considering the footprint. . the businesses are looking for these. this is someone reflective of fthe transbay. i would be very supportive of buildings but closed off the space. the entire area needs that kind of openness.

i appreciate the fact the patio's on the ground floor may have less sunlight. they believed were the years they will take care of creating a park with some light in it appeared -- in it. i notice you have three designated vehicles. it had nothing to do with

approvals, and that is really insufficient. i would urge you to -- you have got enough time to work on a diet -- that so it can be implemented in the future. >> did you have comments? comissioner sugaya: no. >> if there is the way the project sponsor could continue to look at the existing space, the other space could be

protected, and that would be my preference. it is regrettable these conversation did not happen sooner. >> i will be brief. i appreciate the program you have in mind for the arts usage, collaboration with a local college, and i look forward to seeing that once it is in place. i do want to comment on the letter we received from mr. peterson. the last paragraph is something i would like you to review. it is not something i think would prevent me from supporting the project, but they mentioned parking regulation prohibits practices such as long-term

leases, and that is something to keep in mind, electric cars and this kind of thing, so at one. we have a discussion about what it means for transit parking requirements and some congest june pricing -- congestion pricing, so i hope we can talk about this item. comissioner sugaya: there is a comment made with respect to advertising. can they use those animated

things for advertising? >> they cannot use that for general advertising. they could conceivably use it for businesses, but it will primarily be used for art. the planning code already contains provisions that could disturb voluntary parking. i think those concerns are addressed. they would approve some modifications, and it would come back to the commission. >> the motion on the floor is the request to take the

entitlement separately, so on the motion for approval for the quality arct. [calling folvotes] the motion passed, six-one, with commissioner sugaya voting against. on approval, commissioner antonini? [calling votes] thank you, commissioners are

reagan >> we closed the public hearing on the variants and would note that the requirement is a 27-foot maximum, but they could provide two individual ones, but that could be 22 feet for the loading. it would justify granting the variants. the decision is not final until the letter is issued. we will mail you a copy. it has an appeal window of 10 days to the of board of appeals. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now on your agenda item, and it is for

the fiscal year budget and development and proposed approval of the budget for submission to the mayor's office. this is an action item. >> today we have the budget for our action, and i would say two words. last week we presented the proposed new budget. there is essentially no change for the current year, and we will get back tune about future funding for two large region back to you about future funding for two large projects that are not currently funded, but i will ask you to quickly go over the high life -- highlights.

>> last week represented the work plan for the various sections that included the work program. there was some funding in last year's and budget through grants they were able to secure, so that is available through the planning and administrative code and application increases.

the proposed budget does not contain increases for america's cup and the work required under the health care master plan, so are there any questions? i am able to answer them. >> i will open it up to public comment on the budget. seeing none, public comment is close. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> on the motion for approval of the balanced budget -- [calling votes]

thank you, commissioners. the motion passes. you have a general public, -- general public comments. >> is there any general public comment? general public comment is closed, and this meeting is adjourned, i believe. >> ec's. --it is. we will actually get the meeting at a quarter until for, and we will need to go out and take a short break before we come to that item, so we will be back here. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon this is a special meeting of the planning commission for thursday, february 10, 2011. before i take roll, if i can row mind everyone to turn off your cell phone, pagers and any electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. i will also note that this is a very large hearing. crowded room. we have overflow. the commission is not going to tolerate disruption. we will actually stop the hearing if you feel the need to disrupt these proceedings. having said that if you feel the need to engage in a secondarry discussion, we ask you take the discussions outside so we can proceed with the hearing. with that commissioner moore. >> here. >> commissioner saguyia? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> here. [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners.

the item on this special calendar, category a of the calendar is public comment on agenda item for the public hearing has been closed and at this time members of the public may address this commission on any agenda item that has already been reviewed in a public hearing to which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed. your opportunity to address the commission on both items would be at this time. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes on those items. the only item on this calendar that this pertains to is item one, chase number 2008.0021-e for 3711 19th avenue. this is on the certification of the final environmental impact report. i have one speaker card. i'm sure there are other ones. >> if folks can limit their

comments to just the environmental impact report, you will have an opportunity afterwards to speak to the project itself. the sooner we get through this and move to the project, then we will be able to start hearing from members of the public, many whom have to leave at 5:30, 6:00. so that's why we're going to try to keep it as con science as possible for that reason. mark solomon. we will limit it to two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. as usual i think the environmental report on this is quite inadequate. i think we're seeing a situation now where media is being disinvested in. we're seeing deteriorating levels of service yet we're trying to add more load onto those systems as if they don't exist. what we're seeing here is shove ling of public resources into private pockets to bail out a too big to fail development by making it even bigger so that next time speculative investors

come at this, we're going to see an even larger bailout required. i think it's really bad for san francisco we're getting rid of rent-controlled units. that's critical for affordability in san francisco. this is a place where i wouldn't want to live and folks live there and find the community there and respect that and acknowledge that if we're not going to be seeing the kind of investment in transwit this project that's going to mitigate any of the impacts, in fact this project is located within three minutes of interstate 280. so that's going to mean we're talking about being sold, this transit-oriented development will be freeway-oriented development which means more cars and auto trips and greenhouse gases which goes against the city's stated goals for environmental protection. but that's the way it is in san francisco. development is being coddled. the cost being shifted on the backs of taxpayers and yet developers are running away with uning our city and using it as a get rich quick scheme. i urge you to reject this environmental report and project and come back with a staged plan

report that puts the residents in san francisco first before bailing out investors. thank you. >> thank you. aaron goodman followed by arlene madel and laura traveler. >> good afternoon, commissioners. here's a letter and submittal from six national organizations, the national trust for historic preservation, california preservation foundation, san francisco architecture heritage, culture landscape foundation, the northern california chapter of delcomo, northern california chapter of historic american landscape survey. it in regards to the e.i.r., also there's a memo from me on some of the case law issues being discussed currently in the e.i.r. and development agreement. i'm completely opposed to it and i think the e.i.r. should be thrown out, the whole development. you should rethink the whole project and have the architect and development team go back to square one on this project based on all of the impacts and all of

the other discussions we submit prior. there's no reason to push this through so fast and so furious without looking seriously at the e.i.r. and what stuff has been modified by the developers in their best interest versus the best interest of the city and existing community out there. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i will try and glean out some of my e.i.r.-specific comments from what i have written. i would also like to resubmit my paperwork from the audubon society -- i'm sorry? >> state your name for the record. >> i'm sorry, my name is marlene madel. for the autobond society, my clients submitted concerns for the development regarding a treaty mobile and replacement of

significant concern for the autobond society, rural and natural lands. and along the pacific flyway, one of the most important migetory pathways in the world. residents birds nest and raise in young trees. they're concerned about the buildings and bird strikes to the proposed new buildings. they're concerned about the storm runoff and they would like the e.i.r. to address more in depth the lake merced master plan along with the ocean coastal impact. any loss and the other point is any loss of seven acres of green space living earth in or more in any development is an environmental concern to the autobahn sew side. they would like the e.i.r. studies to include local and environmental organizations, biologists, biodiversity agencies and other experts for diversification and e.i.r. studies.

i'm submitting a copy of the letter. actually two copies. and then getting from the birds to the people. the development project has pointed out in the e.i.r. reports to date highlight and results from the san francisco environment unneeded pollution and health concerns for bay area residents, specifically citizens of san francisco and daly city. this demands additional e.i.r. studies to be conducted. with traffic and congestion, long-term construction of 20 to 30 years devastation of a major part of san francisco requires involvement -- is >> thank you. >> thank you. and we'll review your letter. >> ok. >> laura traveler, did you have comments on the e.i.r.?

>> the cost of the development involves human beings, people who have lived in parkmerced for over 30 or like myself, 26 years. these developers seem to feel that they can simply say anything and have people write anything about it. the e.i.r. is not addressing the needs of the human beings in parkmerced. this development besides being an historical development as you know so well, houses people of all different cultures, all different ages, living in a beautiful community. one that does not need to be torn down. the e.i.r. is not addressing -- and i have to say it again and

again, the idea that human beings are living in parkmerced. they want to continue to link in this beautiful development just as it is. thank you very much. >> thank you. if you could limit your comments solely to the environmental impact reports, then it would be useful for us. nay additional public comment on the environmental impact report? please stand over here and if anyone downstairs has any desire to speak to the environmental impact report, i would suggest they come up at this time. that's great. thank you, bernie. >> i'm peter anderson. architect in san francisco and faculty member of the california college of arts and architecture. i want to speak in favor of approving the e.i.r. statement. i reviewed it. i think it is very thorough in

its coverage of the issues. the issue of whether it needs to be preserved from a historical point of view and someone who frequently speaks in favor of preserving significant, important architectural heritage items, in this case none of the individual buildings are important or preserved to the overall planning. it's not the best example of this in the country anyway. it's a much higher and better use for the property to develop it. i think the development plans very well address the environment sensitivity issues and it's a much more resource -- once it is completed in the higher density, it will be much more resource-efficient and in harmony with the goals and aims of the city. i feel strongly it should be preserved and the new environmental stage. thank you. >> thank you.

>> my name is ethyl. i do not live in parkmerced but know plenty of people who have cobblely. this is an outrage to tell people and children their homes are going to be taken away from them. and where in the world do you expect them to go? there is nowhere. the rents are enormous. everything. think about what you're doing before you throw people out on the street. thank you. >> thank you. >> start talking and it will

come up. >> thank you for the opportunity to address you. as you know with e.i.r.'s there must be resources to in effect offset mitigation. there is suff in the e.i.r.'s presently. we have not looked at the alternative sin neros that we have such as limited equity co-op that would have lessened the impact on the developer and the need to mitigate the necessary development that must occur to offset the investments in seismic safety improvements and conservation. that is not sufficient. i have also put down the effect for your immediate attention, two gas lines with unprovable utility to pass parkmerced. i will suggest the developer and the city to in effect deal with the potential disaster impact. this has not been done. in addition, there is -- i would

suggest performance problems that regard the developer regard, the development, the agreements that exist between -- or those between the city and developer are not sufficient without a performance bond. if you can find them to offset your risk. there's also an area wide impact which is insufficiently developed. the impact area extend beyond the owners' property. and to the university. e.i.r.'s do have impact statewide laws, in infect it says the university must participate. they are not part of that development. also unproven in terms of the e.i.r. assessment is whether the so-called public offsets are sufficient to pay for these offsets. for that i suggest the development include an autonomous redevelopment area

that would underpin some of these offsets in terms of capital retrieval. we have received no comments back from the developer. this is all really an attempt to help both the developer and the residents and we don't see that neutrality here. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> by the way, we have the submission for you. >> great. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the parkmerced action coalition and i'm here to ask you to please not certify the e.r.i. -- e.r.i.r. and please do not certify the development agreement and please do not certify the rezoning. i feel that this is completely wrong and not proper to do that

to us. we don't want to feel like like the planning commission is going to do the same thing they did in the fillmore district when they ramrodded everyone out of there. my family was put out of there. this will be the third time that i'm redeveloped -- >> ma'am, if you could live your comments to the environmental impact report. >> yes, that is part of it. absolutely. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. my name is gail and i have been a resident here in san francisco for 19 years. i'm trained as an architect and right now raising my family here in the city. my husband has a small business here and i'm speaking out in support of the plans and for the approval of the e.i.r. for the parkmerced area. it is far reaching in goals and especially to the degree that it is a sustainable version of a liveable development. while we're all doing our part

as residents to reduce our own carbon footprints and live in a sustainable way, it's a rare opportunity for the city and for us residents to support broad stroke and bold steps such as this, to do the kinds of improvements to the infrastructure and to sustainable measure that's we can't do as individuals and we can't do with just tax dollars alone. i'm in support of this because this is private moneys that are going in part towards the extension of public transportation system, which is something that is rare to see a private developer being willing to aparticipate in partnering in something like this. i'm supportive because it's leading the way for the right kind of infrastructure improvements. it's crazy the storm water system is mixed with waste water throughout the city. and here is a large enough portion of our city where the private developer is willing to foot the bill to develop a significant part of the city's