the fire chief testified about the very real problems of dealing with fires in buildings of 07 stories yhuri your -- and buildings of seven stories. just today i got old of the legislation, and i see and hear plans for the building of up to 145 feet. you have the equipment to deal with findings, so you have to have replacement systems. that is not adequately dealt with. this is not green, because you have demolishing of housing with mounds of the demolition being loaded onto trucks and transported to landfill.

we have speakers who talk about outmoded planning, but we do not have a general plan that has been adopted yet. >> is there additional public comment on it eir? seeing none, public comment is closed? >> can i speak? >> of course. that appears to be the last person who wants to speak on the pr at this time. >> my name is mary miles. i have to confess i am not extremely familiar with the eir, but i know it does not adequately discussed the

project. you have to not only say why it is not feasible, but you have to back it up with substantial evidence. it will have impact as, which displaces thousands of the residences. iron bothered by the open space -- i am bothered by the open space. it does not properly analyze the baseline. it has to be the actual conditions.

it has to do with the situation on the ground. it is the same with land use very good region and in the same with land use. and -- it is the same with land use. it is going to affect regional traffic. when it comes to analyzing traffic, you have to consider that. may i speak on the development agreement? >> mr. paulson, did you want to speak to the eir? >> walter paulson curator --

walter paulson. i used to live there. ♪ i knew they build the sub during the war ♪ harner you want to make -- i know you want to make it could, and i hope you do ♪ ♪ i want to see park merced really good right now ♪ ♪ i do not want to wait for our city lives to be over ♪ ♪ i want to see it could like it should end by in a war of 1944 ♪

>> is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we have not called the item for your deliberation yet. a few close public comment, i will call the item. -- if you close public comment, i will call the item. republican hearing is over. the item is item one also known as park merced mixed use development environmental impact report. >> should we hear from the staff

thurman -- from the staff? >> i joined the commission late last year and had the opportunity to review all of the hearings. i have received the materials and heard a public comment superior -- and heard the public, rita -- and her public comments. >> good afternoon, i am rick cooper from the environmental analysis section. the item is for the final eir for the proposed park merced project. the draft was published on may 12, 2010.

the public comments closed on july 12, 2010. the response was distributed. you have before you as a supplemental information packet that contains provisions, including of days to transportation committee if -- including updates to azuela's air quality -- as well as air quality measures that take into account changes. these do not present new information that would alter the situation. i have provided you with copies of letters.

you have received a letter for the historic national trust, which raises a few concerns, some of which have been raised today the other would like to address. the letter sent to us but it reduces the impact of the proposed project us -- as required. it does not provide information to justify the reaction. a dozen analyze a wide range of alternatives -- it does analyze a wide range of alternatives. those were determined to have of feasibility a, and it is capable of being implemented by a

technical seven point. they must consider alternatives for public determination. formal determination of its feasibility, whether there are considerations but make one of the alternatives in feasible to adopt are made by the decision makers as part of deliberations. it is not part of the eir. we have made separate reports. once an eir is complete, the commission may choose to adopt an alternative if it is

considered feasible second, it states but decisions confirmed the conclusion. the eir dose examine the proposed project, including historic resources. more important, the motion requiring a comprehensive analysis and findings regarding consistency for a general plan, including -- mitigation policy. much stronger mitigation need

sufis provided to pay for historic resources surveys or payment to of preservation fund. none of these will reduce the resources to a less than significant manner. thermosphere clear connection with mitigation superior -- there must be a clear impact for mitigation. during the public comment meeting today, we heard speakers who raised other concerns. many were expressions of support for the project. public opinion is not a topic

of concern for certification of the eir, although you may wish to take them into account. regarding the potential for major earthquake common the criteria is whether it would expose people to a fund to risk. -- to undue risk. new buildings must need of ago codes -- applicable codes. finally, i have been contacted by a contractor who states of the official transcript who saves the the remarks were inaccurate.

i've would like to read the following change. the sentence currently states the only a civil alternative is the concern and should be corrected to save the only a civil alternative is the new project -- only a civil alternative is the new project alternative. in -- only acceptable alternative is a new project alternative. i would like to conclude with certification.

they found the implementation of a profit would result in potentially significant, unavoidable impact that would not be limited in the areas of transportation, historic resources, air quality, and biological resources. now we would request the the reports are adequate and the procedures comply to guidelines and shoved through 31 of the codes during your -- and the code curiosa -- and the co interior and -- and the code.

>> thank you. we may call you back. there are others i feel are not adequate. can you discuss whether they need to take into consideration and why not? >> if proper procedures are followed, there will need to be further impact.

>> with respect to environmentally superior alternatives, i think they conclude the historic core alternative is environmentally superior -- and they are under no obligation to adopt about, though it is feasible. >> the is a matter i think there prefer not to answer myself. >> i am asking the vicos in the attachment, -- because in the attachment, it rejects about

alternative. i do not think the alternative is adequately done. it seems it can be incorporated. it also says it would reduce if not eliminate transportation

impact. it does say it reduces its. isn't that enough thelma -- isn't that enough? i do not think the alternative is adequate. another issue is there is a no muni alternative in which there are a number of unmitigitable circumstances. we are to reconsider as part of

our over-riding considerations. it seems the analysis does not go as far as they try to set forth the importance of having the alignment take place, and if we look on page 34, the development agreement says, the muni realignment represents a fundamental component of environmental sustainability goals and represents a major public benefit to the project.

it also ays the projects represent that whether they will approve may create significant challentes for the project and captital changes. they may further benefit by compromising environmental sustainability goals. i cannot see how the eir may treat this without taking into consideration the statement said says all whole project seems to be defended john this alignment, -- defends the alignment, which

is basically to say the alternative will have the following benefits. something is inconsistent. that is the reason i cannot support this. comissioner antonini: i think it is adequate. there are 3 or 4 major issues. one is preservation. we have to take into consideration a desire to serve. i think they adequately desccribe alternatives as well as the project as presented, and

whether it says about changes that would come, i think it is made clear they would be iliminated, and that is more about the actual hearing of the approval of the project. i certainly know the impacts. they differentiate between the impacts between those using 19th avenue as a conduit, and they do a good job of putting measures

in place. there could be an increase curiosa fear could be -- it could be an increase. they are not using it as a conduit. that is more discussion curiosa -- more discussion. they make a good case of describing it. the final one is construction impacts, and that was analyzed as well as it can be. we are talking about whether

this is thorough enough. i think it is accurate and adequate. comissioner moore: is it accurate or innacurate. at this moment, we are discussing whether it is accurate enough to be certified as described. i want to remind you we are not considering the accuracy of ceqa findings. we are discussing whether to

discuss it as an informational document. the point is, can't we inform for the significant proposal? can't we find ways to maximize and describe reasonable alternatives. i would like to confirm ceqa should not approve until all have been brought to environmental impact. this needs to be answered now and not postponed until we are talking about documents.

has the project sponsor adequately described the project? is the project realistic? is the proposed project adding value to the community? >> have they informed us? have they provided reasonable alternatives? hofei -- have they proposed all significant means? number seven is the trade-off and significant unavoidable impact to use our resources, and

noise and air quality justifiable and of acceptable? i am going to comment on the project description. it fluctuates between 2010 -- 20 and 30.

could they be deferred for economic and financial conditions? the environmental impacts of the construction project are not the same as the 20-year construction projects? could save the issues and reduced air quality -- safety issues and reduced air quality reasonably be considered? i do not think so. consider this. if someone were to continue for 20 or 30 years along with a significant environmental

impact of increased truck traffic, how would you field? -- how would you feel? i reference here the construction horatian who would be saved for 20 years and -- construction would-be for 20 years interior -- for 20 years. next reference is 30 years. "the project would be implemented over three decades." this is from