telegraph hill dwellers and we have no opposition there. we want this corridor to be vital in everything and prosperous at the same time. we want to make sure we do>> th. is there any additional public comment? c and non, public comment is closed. vice-president miguel: that is a large space. i knew that space as a jazz club and well before that. there was billiards in that direct area. after late nights out, a group of us often went into mike's pool hall for many, many years. san francisco was once one of the major billiards locations in

the united states with many international tournaments being played here. my father was a billiards player. i tried in could not do it. i gave it up for an occasional game every once in awhile. there is a billiard parlor somewhere close to arguelo that has players that practice there and teach their that win international tournaments. a little bit more of that type of old action coming into the city, there is nothing wrong with it. to activate one of the many dead spots in the neighborhood. i moved to approve with conditions. >> second. commissioner fong: this is not another case of activation and bring some light into some dark

areas. my first job was valet parking cars when the broadway was in its heyday. there were people out. you could not get into too much trouble because there were people around. i support the motion. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to approve with conditions. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice-president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> so moved. it appears as if >> we will begin our 5:00 p.m. calendar, which has a public comment. members of the public who wish to address the agenda items

must deduce so at this time. members may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. >> i do not know if you wish to speak to the e.r.. -- the eir. the sole right. that is fine. -- it is all right. it is fine. >> the public hearing is close. item 18, the executive park amended the area and the development project and final

environmental impact report. the public comments for the draft ended in 2010. goo>> good afternoon. the item before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report for the proposed executive park and the universal parergon development projects. a copy of the draft cert motion is before you. it was published on october 13, 2010. the public comments close on november 29, 2010. the public comments were

distributed on april 21, 2011. the evaluations found that implementation of the project would result in a project- specific and cumulative impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level of transportation and air quality. should the commission shoes to approve the project, that motion will follow. i would like to suggest the commission adopt the resolution before you, that the procedures comply with secret guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative region -- with

cequa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code. >> commissioner morore? >> i have read through the responses, and since the project has been conducted tightly, i believe the eir is complete and accurate, and i think it is solid in its basic position, and i moved and we approve it. >> second. >> i was about to move it, but it has already been moved. >> on the motion to certify the eir. [calling votes]

so moved that the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. i will now place you under your 5:00 and regular calendar for items a, b, c, d, and e for the executive who general plan amendments and to design guidelines. >> i am not snyder of the department's staff. before your are -- i am matt snyder of the department staff. the proposed amendments are to enable the transformation of the office park portion of this site into an excuse

predominate neighborhood. there are five factions before you tonight. the approval is to allow development but to not approve actual projects. we have been before you to provide information. on march 17, we gave the history on the proposed general plan amendments. we are here before you to discuss the planning code amendments and design guidelines. we have also asked the land committed to provide an additional orientation. we send you a package that included all of the draft resolutions and draft ordinances, and in the last

week, we submitted a supplemental package that included material not originally sent to you, including minor revisions to some of the material to regard -- some of futhe supplemental materials. as i go through the actions, i will describe the modification and how they shall be integrated into recommendations. there is one thing i want to touch upon. now there were some questions regarding the specificity or lack thereof of new guidelines and to determining how the public realm guestets built ando create a coherent system of open

space. projects sponsors have begun this endeavor. the draft version was brought to you in last week's packet. in the same packet, the staff provided some language within the guidelines, recognizing this is a draft, but is the draft on which the basis of his master plan will be established. the actions before you, i will go through them, indicating the adoption of sequel findings -- cequa findings. there was a question regarding

the identification of supplemental environmental impact report. there were additional findings to be consistent. the general plan amendments are mostly consistent with what we have sent you so far. the findings should indicate 1600 units. also not in the handout, but a part of what i would like you to consider is to strike to of the figures in the general plan maps regarding height. we find this is not necessary. it is something we have not been

doing involving area of plans. there are couple of other corrections. the one i would point out is a reference regarding the delivery of open space and street improvements. we did ste. the language -- tweet the language. -- tweak the language. finally the resolution as is described and provided in your last package. now this item is now before you for your deliberations and consideration. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you.

nas, project sponsored? -- project sponsor? >> my wife and i are the owner of the yerby project. i want to start by taking the planning department. for their hard work and commitment to get us where we are today the community has been supportive of this park, and a special thanks to the advisory committee for their 30-plus year involvement. this process has been and will continue to be a joint partnership with property owners themselves and the community. from mid 2006, we have worked

closely with the planning staff to create the plan before you today. we have engaged the involvement of the community and listened to their input. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, the commissioners. i would like to echo the appreciation of the staff's effort on this over the years, and as we have talked about, and it became a measure of how many children planning staff has in their family. kate mcgee was the original planner on this, and she has two at this point, so i want to echo those sentiments in end looking forward to taking the next step

in this project and look forward to maintaining the long term commitment. thank you very much. >> we have one speaker card. >> my name is jacob moody. i am the executive director for the foundation of community improvement. this is our 40th anniversary this year, and i want to provide our enthusiastic support for this project it is extremely important for our community, not just in terms of what will happen if the jobs that will be made possible as a result. i want to ask for your favorable support in moving it onto the board of supervisors. arc>> we looked at this projectd

had extensive discussion. it was a terrific discussion, and what surprises me is the contrast between what is proposed and what exists. we would like a thoughtful design of everything, and if they are -- if there are any questions, that is not what happens. this is a great use of underutilized land. thanks. >> commissioners, i am the senior pastor of the church, and we are representing the

tabernacle why operations. -- the tabernacle. this and who lays out the progressiveness and the impact the project will have, and when i look at projects like this, they will drive job readiness and affordable housing, because i understand 50% of these houses will be affordable, and one of the things i like about this project is they talk about housing and also businesses that are going to be needed and a

social breakdown. of hopefully, they are doing our third job in -- doing a good job. i believe you will to the right thing. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i was at another meeting, and there was discussion about treasure island, and the statement was made because it was private money that they could not deal wis public housing curiosa -- public housing. it was put together with board members, and there was an

understanding the thought would be 50%, so i just want to say local housing started in the southeast sector, and when somebody comes to you and says it is private money and you do not have to deal with local housing, that is not a fact. >> is there any additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> i think this is an excellent project and was developed in the right way. it was a reaction to changing conditions basically moving from commercial to residential. in view of the entitlements that are in place through the region for other commercial and regions, they will satisfy that need, and doing a lot of good

things -- creating a neighborhood, creating a new street grid, open space, and local hiring, which has been around a long time. i will go ahead and move some items. what we would be approving in the cequa findings as presented. number three, move the planning code with flexibility on open space and locations and street locations has indicated. number four, approved zoning maps as amended.

if i am wrong, please let me know. >> there are two things in this memo. >> maybe there are some changes. if you would let us know. >> the revisions were sent to you last week. one thing i would specify are the figures that i am recommending we strike as part of the general plan. i believe they are figures 7 anton8 the show -- figures 9 and 8. this is generally something we do not put in any more.

the last figure would be renumbered accordingly. these additional language that gives some flexibility as to when the open space it's delivered, -- space is delivered curator >> i stand corrected, so maybe i should restate my motion. it includes ceqa findings. i was reading the draft motion, and of course the changes in general plans, and we already said the olefins was removed and

1600 is added in. richard 11 was removed and 1600 is added in. then i think the streetscape and infrastructure design guidelines remain as presented. >> last week in the revisions, we added an additional amendments the reorganized as sort of the work we are working on, so that is what that would do a. >> that is my understanding, and that is more in my proper understanding in no. 5, which is the design guidelines.

>> is there a second? comissioner moore: i would like to share with the commissioners of brief interlude of the last couple months, but i want to first express my full support of the project, which i have voiced all along, particularly because this is one place where we are basically realizing a server and business park in its old configuration does not work any more 3. it is too isolated. and many developers walk away, and they have to underutilized site sitting around. staff is rising to the occasion, taking that extra step transforming it into

something suburban. i have looked at this project for quite a few years. i started looking at if one guy came into the commission. -- looking at it when i came into the commission. are realized in the composition of towers, one of the towers and -- the architect was sitting her awkwardly close region one of the towers was sitting awkwardly close to the highway -- i realized in the composition of the towers, one of the towers was too close to the highway. gooit is a very disconcerting thing, even when you say in a

hotel where your view is over and over expressway. it is very hard. they said, it sounds like a good idea, so we had some discussions as to whether or not the talking in of the tower are in line, and there is apparently a possibility to do so, and i want to ask the director or mr. snyder to go over itsel. i want to share that with you. >> the goal of would-be region wou -- the goal would be a possibility of moving the tower so essentially one parcel to the east, so it is my sense of what

the commission could do is approved the project and asked the board to consider such a change with the understanding that some minor environmental review and would have to be done and acknowledging he would have to discuss that at this hearing. >> can we speak to the architect? >> commissioner morore and i had this conversation it is a design a solution -- had this

conversation. it is a design evolution. it is not a problem for my client. the director thinks there is a possibility to ensure the commission can approve the project and has the latitude to impact, and my inclination is i do not think there is. we need to confirm that. it is not a problem. >> we have talked about that. they will have to definitely to the examination in order to justify it. i think it is not a big deal, according to the conversation we had. we would have to take the step first, but it does not delay the project for months. it is a focus examination, and

it does not seem to be a big deal at the moment. comissioner sugaya: i would think there could be a possibility that it is minor enough it does not have to be amended. >> i think it would be an addendum. comissioner antonini: i am to land use lawyer. i do not disagree with anything that has been said, but i want to make sure our understanding is your understanding. and we are happy to incur the additional costs to study whether there would be any wind or shadow impact, but what we are asking you to