benefits of regular exercise if you listen to some of the people who were there. i am really proud of the athletic clubs that we have in san francisco that a lot of people do not realize how many we have and how active the members are. i am not a swimmer but it is pretty impressive by someone who can swim from the golden gate bridge to the bay bridge. that is aways. and there are areas that are inaccessible along the waterfront that are not as clean as they should be. it might be an advantage to clean up some of these areas and make more areas accessible so in addition to aquatic park we have other areas that will be usable. a question was raised as commissioner miguel talked about the scope of this eir and how it deals with future development that will occur on future piers and what sort of

things we will have to have in the future. i don't know how much detail that goes into that, but that is a question that should be answered as to whether this project e.i.r. would include -- what it would include towards the other developments, which will happen i am sure but what sort of additional environmental analysis will have to happen. it is the environmental question that comes up. hyde street pier was mentioned, usable for additional functions. cleaning up the restrooms at aquatic park makes, you know, total sense. that should be done whether we have an america's cup or not. one of the problems we have is that we do not have enough of these. i know some people may not avail themselves of them anyway but at least they have to be there to make it possible. and finally, mitigate whatever

effects we can february other parts of the golden gate national recreation area and as jennifer said, make sure that you analyze the longer out reaching impacts of the activities on other parts of san francisco in the bay area. although we are kind of confining our analysis to the city and county of san francisco. it is a great project. i think it has tremendous benefits from san francisco. we will create a terminal that we would not if not for this. that is great. i think we have more work to do on it. >> thank you for everybody who has commented. there were many thought-provoking comments. i hope they all together will create a ground swell that is more responsive to the issues which concerns the city of san francisco.

i do not feel that anybody obligates to the -- objects to the america's cup but i think the deir that stands is somewhat incomplete because it mashes together a project e.i.r. that is the cruise terminal and incomplete program e.i.r. with the america's cup and kind of it has added a new program which lacks a complete description and there is no environmental analysis. that is speculative and inconclusive addition of two occupying pier 14 to 22.5 and 27-29. these are up to 500-foot boats. few or nobody in the world has really ever analyzed the environmental effects of this.

the event description for me would appear very optimistic, yet it is open-ended and some were omitting information. it is particular when it does not analyze the actual effects on the surrounding neighbors. it speaks about the waterfront but the surrounding neighbors, like the secondary and living areas for us, the main living areas are not really fully addressed. the project for the long-term lease beyond 2012-2013 is incomplete. the amount of impact cannot be

analyzed, although it should. that would require a top of lease, the exact location, the number of locations, specifically where the tides and intensity of uses, the frequency of use and specific time frames together with specific requirements which is loading, unloading, all complete infrastructure, which at this moment does not exist in some of those locations. i was very much struck by the uniform expression of the consensus that there is a complete absence of impact analysis on existing public recreation, and i completely agree with that. the only acknowledgment of impact is actually the wear and tear on the facility. i found that somewhat amusing. particularly as we listen to very detailed testimony from the dolphin and south end

rowing club. in the middle of the south end rowing club and the dolphin club there is also a public pier, referred to as a municipal pier. for many that is a food resource. they have the right to fish and get their lunch or dinner there at any time of the day or any time of the year. nogs that there is a maritime museum and nobody from the maritime museum spoke today. it goes on to speak about public recreation the marina green and others, alcatraz, fort baker and the waterfront. what is not analyzed is the impact on other recreation, because nogs swimmers in the aquatic park, there are many wind surfers out on the bay launching. they come with their kayaks and

small row boats or don't belong to the clubs. what i am personally concerned about is what i consider the privatization of the waterfront in key locations during the event. at this moment i am glad that i do not live in the marina. because the marina green will be greatly private sized, not only for the race, but for nine months or more which people being cut off from their front yards and the waterfront beyond. what i am concerned about in the plans recently approved, the contradictions with those plans. that e.i.r. was solely base on

the concept of public open space and the use of the open water access and the open water for public recreation. that part of the city is greatly underserved. the waterfront recreation, and that particular project was a major -- this particular e.i.r. and the plans for the america's cup seem to be kind of looking at that particular project site a little differently. the next point, and you have to really look is the treasure island plan. the treasure island sailing center is the only public water access non-profit organization on treasure island serving families. the deir identifies the parking

lot, a very small area, as a helipad location. helicopters and water sport in that location do not mix very well. i have to soon that is a contradiction in the way we looked at that e.i.r. it goes on to say adaptively reused for the america's cup. i hope there will be significant push back to properly sort that out. there is a series of implementation plans i would have liked to have in order to look at the e.i.r. and look at the impact plan. i have never seen the plan. i am not familiar of any draft of the park event operations

plan. only in draft form available in the fall of 2011. the public safety plan, i am not sure where that stands. the sustain ability plan, workforce development plan and traffic plan and team base operational manual. all of them are mentioned. i think this body and you yourself would meet all of those to understand what is really intended here. again, i think while we expect to get these documents, the timely delivery are essential. i would submit my comments in writing. >> i would like to thank everyone from the public for coming out. i think we need to -- i would like to clarify a couple of

things even though this is supposed to be comments on the e.i.r. in looking through the environmental report especially in the public policy section or land use, i think that you would be surprised to find that this commission has little decision-making with respect to the america's cup. you know a lot of the venued locations are the port, so the port commission and the federal agencies have a lot of the decision making to do on this. if you are talking about transportation a lot of that is implemented through m.t.a. and the people over in the transportation section and muni. there may be involvement on the rec park commission. they may have some jackson. but if you look through, and i

don't think we have anything to do with the people -- well, aside from reviewing things in reviewing those and our concern busy what may be or may not be in the people plan and the sustain ability plan and that sort of thing, i don't believe at this time that we have very much direct decision make to do on the entire america's cup project. i think that it is the way it is structured. that it is an event even though it has to be manifested on the ground in some way. this was about the e.i.r., which is broader than the planning commission here. your comments were not wasted

in any way. but i think in the future there will probably be your opportunities will lie more with the other jurisdictions, rather than the planning commission. i would just like to point that out. i will have some comments in written form of my own to submit later. >> i just wanted to echo what the -- i really appreciate the comments that we heard today and definitely i think there were important points made in regards to the inadequates' of the e.i.r. and certain points that need to be further analyzed and recreational use of aquatic park. jennifer clary mentioned the distance of impacts and a couple of other items that she mentioned here. i think that is important for us to analyze further. ultimately we will not be having much jurisdiction over the final project.

so i think that it is important for the public to be informed and the commission here of our ultimate role as it relates to america's cup. and i think ultimately it is just the certification of the e.i.r. but i don't think anything -- i don't think it goes beyond that, actually. so i think that this is a good forum. hopefully members of the public heard what the members of the public had to raise. i think that it would be good for the public to understand all of the differences and places where these decisions will be made about the ultimate, you know, the project and how it will look. a lot of the issues raised today do and don't relate to the e.i.r. it is the final vision for what people want to see.

i would like to ask staff to provide -- i don't know if other members of the commission are interested but i would like to have a breakdown of where these different decisions are made. i know that there are others. i would like to be informed of that and have a better understanding. clearly outside of that i know we are not that body. but again the comments that were made didn't fall on deaf ears, we just don't have any ultimate influence on the -- how the project will look. >> just a couple of comments to clarify some things. the e-line which does have a tunnel if it goes all the way, i don't know if everyone

understands that is a one-way tunnel only one direction at a time. because of the narrow width of it. something of a bottle neck. not a huge people-mover. there was a gentleman who spoke earlier regarding the aquatic park restrooms which he knew at the old local high school. when i was swimming on the team at the old high school is when i did a lot of swimming in the aquatic park. the restrooms were a disaster then. that and those of you who took notes that i mentioned the nepa process, because that is a federal facility, a national maritime museum, that is where you should address your remarks. >> i don't want people to take

my comment wrong. i think the commission is truly interested in the progress of the america's cup and will try to insert itself wherever we can and however we can. i think that if there are concerns among you and you may not be getting responses that you would like i think that you can certainly contact any one of us or the director. we are genuinely interested in working with the others. >> yeah. that is correct. >> thank you. one advantage we have here is the lead time to be able to prepare to do as much as we can to mitigate impacts, unlike the world series in the following parade which i thought went really well.

but you had little lead time to take care of those measures. i am reading the report here. and while i am not minimizing the concerns about impacts, according to it i think that they were talking about up to 17 race days in 2012 and up to 50 in 2013. you are looking at a impact probably where there will be additional days before and after. maybe 25 maximum and while it is important, it is a segment in time. and we do have significant impacts all the time with baseball and 81 days per year. i think that we have been able to do a pretty good job of moving people in and out of that area of the city. and other events that attract large numbers of people to san francisco, parades and other things.

so i think this can be done, without a question. >> i just wanted to make a few comments and point out that this is a very large event, over not just aquatic park but the entire waterfront. it will have lasting impact. it hasn't been done before. i think the whole thing will be a work in progress. as we get further i look ford a more tighter plan. a couple of things related to transportation in the e.i.r. i am happy to see the mention of shuttle buses. a communication plan as suggested will be key to encouraging folks not to drive themselves but to find other methods of getting to the waterfront. bike lanes and bike parking which is very important. and while is complex, it is a chance for improvement overall

for the city and for the waterfront. i am concerned about the northbound closure to the area and how that could prevent or trap people at certain parts of the waterfront. again as it progresses and moves forward i hope that there is a good plan to get people out using potential buses or bicycles. aquatic park, i enjoy the water of the bay, enjoy surfing. i realize being in the water here is a very personal experience on a changing basis. the water tastes different one day and different another day. you feel that it is your bay. while i am excited about the america's cup, i grew up in the bay fishing and swimming and boating. for every time i am on the water i realize that boy, nobody really experiences this. i don't know the figure but probably 2% of the people in san francisco make it on the water.

so many times i said other people should experience it. america's cup will allow people to get to the water's edge and in and out of and on top of our bay and experience that. i am excited about that. relate to the long-term development plans, i wanted to point out that those developments will meet the port regulations and state land restrictions. so there is some level of asurance there on that part. i think that is it. thank you though. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to make a comment that this commission does not decide what the exact outcomes will be. the only thing that we can do though is support the planning department and deliver an e.i.r. which is responsive to the questions and the concerns of this community.

i think that we have the power to do that. and i do believe that the spoken comments which were pointed out to us in and other e.i.r. as prepared by many thoughtful and knowledgeable people should help give guidance to some of the issues and concerns. i would strongly encourage it particularly because it is such a fast track e.i.r. that it is done as much as possible. >> the nepa scoping hearing is august 17th at 4:30, not 6:30. >> sorry. thank you. >> they wanted to give that correction. but i agree with all of the comments of the commissioners. clearly if there are questions anyone has regarding the process, you know what is the time frame of when will the

final e.i.r. be in place and just some kind of -- i think i would like to have a sense of that, too. >> we could put together an outline for you as well as all of the reviewing and approving bodies. i think that would be great. >> that would be great to have forus and so the public could have it. it is really complicated, i think. and everything happened so quickly that we all need to be sort of alerted to it. i really want to thank the members of the public for coming out and educating us. yeah. it is really important. >> just a follow up question to the director. in addition to the certification of the e.i.r., and we had informational presentations, are there other things that are scheduled for the commission at this point?

>> not currently. if the commission wanted to have another informational hearing we could certainly do that. >> are we expected to receive the people plan and the other things? >> yeah. we can make sure that you get copies of those. >> ok. all right. >> thank you. >> i will note that written comments will be accepted at the planning department office until the close of business on august 25th, 2011. >> thank you. >> planning commissioners, you still have general public comment. >> is there any general public comment on items not on agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed and the meeting is closed and the meeting is adjourned.