in addition to verbal comments received from the 41 speakers, the planning department received 235 written comments through e-mail, fax, and the document was published. organized by topic including all of the same environmental topics as presented. this includes tax changes. these make minor changes. this allows the review to make document changes.

many of these were prompted by comments received. these include four primary refinements. updates to the implementation of improvements, potential fil removel of sites, update and spectator and support vote estimates, updated cruise ship assumptions and updated and augmented air quality analyses and mitigation measures. no. 2, of barrington project incorporating modifications for the race to events -- and then temporary public access improvements and certain

permanent public access improvements on the port properties. no. 3, a variant incorporating the refined cruise terminal and certain changes in proposed special area plans to increase public access. number four, a reduced intensity and long-term development alternative that was added that would include the same requirements as in the project variant, and it defines the reduction and potential long- term development to allowing development on only certain peers and avoid all development on others, and it defines locations of potential long-term marinas. i also handed out some additional amendments.

none of those results in a change to the findings and conclusions. the draft constitute a final er before the commission for certification today. at this time when they are not being considered -- considering the merits of this. project approval is subject of the port commission agenda for their meeting tomorrow following certification. some highlights i would like to point out, table 12.11-2 provides references to wear in the september 2011 people plan the transportation elements of

each mitigation measures are discussed in more detail, and this will be included in the final plans. for air quality, we have measures for ac34, and cruise ships have been updated in response and also with discussions with the bay area air quality management district and coordination with the court =- port. methodology, air quality mitigation efforts the severity would be substantiallylessed than those in the draft e.i.r. air quality impacts due to emission of oxides of not

nitrogen or nox both p.m. 10 and p.m. 2.5 resulting from the a.c. 34 events could be below significant thresholds of the air district. while emissions of reactive organic gases would continue to exceed the thresholds and continue to result in a significant and unavoidable regional impact for operations of the ampt c. 34 events. the combination of revised project description asurpgses and implementation of mitigation efforts could result in the off set of all emissions associated with the decommissionening of the shore side power for 2012 and 2013 at pier 27. the recent significant air quality impact due to nox emissions as a result of this could be reduced with the

augustmented mitigation efforts. these impacts were all determined to be significant and unavoidable. even with the mitigation in draft e.i.r. and due to some mitigation efforts, the significant conclusions remain unchanged in the final e.i.r. we did receive letters after the publication of the c.i.r.'s. they contain comments dated to be relevant to the c.n.r. dobblingment of the e.i.r. in general. the individuals and organizations were copied to planning staff and i'm just going to summarize what their concerns were because of the recent date of those letters we were not able to include them in the c.n.r. we did include a letter from the

district and we have the response to that letter since it was a little more detailed than something i could read out at the meeting today. staff has reviewed the concerns and find them similar to comments already addressed in the c.n.r. documents as i will explain. the topics of concern this these liters we received through yesterday include request for continuance. the san francisco administrative code requires 10 days for review and we gave 14 days of review of the c.n.r.'s. concern that the mmrp, the reporting program was not in the e.i.r. and it's not required to be in the e.i.r. but the mitigation measures are exactly the same as they are in the draft e.i.r. they're just lifted into the mmrp and that will be going towards their findings and

approval tomorrow. a concern about feasibility to less than significant, we have response under gem-2, concerned about inadequate selection of alternative without the long-term development we have responded o that in a.l.-1. >> transportation impact on muni riders during evens we have responded that that is significant and unavoidable. a concern about recreation crafts onboard sailing we have commented that in the comments and responses. implementing the pier 70 mitigation center. this is the new measure that we've added and we have put that in -- as m -- mitigation measure mq 4-e. biological mitigation responsibility has been included a mbi-1 and the responsibility

that is been assigned in the mmrp. that goes before the port commission tomorrow. also concerned about it willer in the bay. we have addressed that in our eaks 5.16 and high droll ji and water quality. visiting mariners to protect the animals and rafting birds. we have included in our response bim -- 8 a. and we had a lot of support for and opposition to the project or aspects of the project which are not sequa issues. we do have -- the comments i heard today included commitments of the full cost recovery rest tration of parkland to preevent conditions we have addressed that in the bio section. the jumbotron in aqua -- in aquatic park we have assigned

that so that the jumbotron will be 100 feet offshore from the swimming lane and we're working closely with staff to avoid any destruction of aquatic park during the event. and also the city has also committed to continued coordination with the environmental groups to refine the mitigation efforts and the imply mentation plans. and for impacts of surrounding neighborhoods, we did do across the board the draft e.i.r. looked at and analyzed secondary impacts throughout. we did find some significant, unavoidable impacts with transportation and secondary impacts at secondary sights. so, in sum, these recent comments are largely similar to those already addressed in the documents. the comments we received through today do not change the contend and conclusions identified in

the final e.i.r. the e.i.r. discloses a number of impacts including those that will not create significant environment effects and those that could create an environmental impact would be precluded or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation efforts. there are some impacts that would remain unavoidable impacts despite these measures and these impacts include for the america's cup events in 2012 and 2013 and long-term, the land use impact for the long-term development under the host agreement. cultural resources impact also for the long-term development at pier 3032, transportation impacts for ac-2012 and 2013 event, several intersections at

secondary viewing areas. transit impacts remain unavoidable that would exceed of muni lines the presid-go transit service, ferry lines, golden gate ferry line, blue and gold ferry lines, san trans lines and transit operations related to additional congestion and destruction of regular scheduled ferry operations and transportation network impact in combination with other special events in san francisco happening simultaneously and we did fine long-term developments for impacts for transportation also. a couple of other impacts that did remain significant, unavoidable included noise and air quality as i had touched on earlier.

accumulative air quality impacts would remain. for the cruz terminal the significant unavoidable impacts would be transportation and circulation, mainly on the s market and war of's historic streetcar line. we did find air quality impacts in the emission of criteria pollutants and precursors that violate the standards. and cumulative impacts on transportation noise and air quality. if the commission certifies the e.i.r., the port commission and the board of supervisors can proceed to consider the proposed projects. if the port commission and board despite to approve the project they'll need to don't a statement of overriding considerations that explains how the benefits of the projects out weigh the environmental impacts. a draft e.i.r. certification motion is before the planning commission. certification is not an action to approve the project but

solely a decision that the e.i.r. has been completed and in compliance with the california environmental quality act and is adequate, objective and accurate. this concludes my presentation. i and other staff who have worked on this e.i.r. and the environmental consultants am available to answer questions you may have. i wanted to bring up mike martin from the office of economic workforce development representing project response source to say a cup of wortsdz and john ram wanted to speak a little bit on the permitting moving forward. >> good evening, commissioners, mike martin, america's cup project director in the office of workforce development. i will be exceedingly brief. i wanted to compensation, d do two things, expression our commitment and appreciation. the first is the appreciation

and it has to do with the amount of effort and energy in putting the document together that's before you today. it starts with your staff and their professionalism and integrity but it reaches out to all the departments. i think it also reaches to our partners in other agencies including the national park service and the coast guard, conservation development commission but it even goes further than that. it goes further to all the people who have helped us make this a better project through this process. i want to highlight the efforts of the environmental council. they've been very generous with their expertise and help us think about how to make the cruise terminal project and the america's cup event but the overall legacy of the city that becomes greeter than the sum of its parts. today's opportunity to certify the c.i.r. is a way to continue this process and to ward and

that brings me to the commitment. the commitment that we want to continue this effort both in engaging our community our partners and other permitting agencies to refine the implementation plans, 11 of them, they all talk about the different as peblingts of how we're going to move this event forward. and put together something that we as san franciscans can be proud of. i've worked at the city for 10 years now. i've had the privilege to look at all the aspects of this effort and it has been unique and people who have contributed to and made better over the course of the last several months. with that i'll step back and obviously we're here to answer your questions. thank you. >> thank you. just two things, commissioner, one is just to thank the project team and all the members of the public and the environmental council. we've done this for so long. i just personally want to give

my personal thanks to joy who has worked incredibly hard on this including some very, very, very, very late nights at the 11th hour and 59th minute before the document was being published. and bill weico who has overseen this. and all the other departments and the port who's staff has been incredible on this. i want to emphasize one thing that joy mentioned. your approval of the certification, your certification of the e.i.r. is one step out of many that will not -- that can now take place if you choose, of course, to certify. you are not approving the project. there are many, many other agencies that have to approve the project and various aspects of this project. you heard that the port commission, of course, will be taking some actions if you choose to certify. obviously, the board of supervisors will be taking a series of actions. but then i just want to emphasize that there are 12 other city, county and regional

and state and federal agencies who have to take actions related to this event. many of the mitigation measures and concerns that have been expressed today can be addressed and worked out in those process cease as well. and i fully expect that they will be. but it's important that the public realize and i'm sure many of you do. i'm sure that they realize that it's not an approval on the action. ironically you don't have an approval action. but you only act on the e.i.r. but many of these agencies at least 15 that i count will be talking about this. so thank you. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you to everybody. monique from the port and albert and to all the staff.

not only to the staff but the great collision of contributors who corporated to produce a very good final environmental impact report and demonstrated and do at all on record time and demonstrate what question do as city when we work together. and this is very impressive. and i was also very impressed in reading the comments and responses that some of the concerns that had been voiced in response to the d.e.i.r. were answered and mitigations were put in place and i think that was extremely well done. and it was evidenced by, i think overwhelming support from the comments tonight. i see we have other commissioner who is want to comment but i was going to move approval but i think we'll get the other commissioners commissioner comments? commissioner olague: commissioner miguel? president miguel: president miguel: i think this is a --

commissioner miguel: as far as as the attention that the city will receive, i can't think of another event truthfully since the 39th world fair that will be worldwide recognition to the city. it's also very unusual because of the three different government nal agencies in effect that are involved. we have the city. we have the port commission which in effect deals with the state concerns and then we have the national park service. i've had the pleasure of working over the years on some national park and ggnra stuff with three of the speakers tonight. jane, becky evans and carol

prince. they are and always have been extremely involved in the environmental end both the theoretical and practical. and i greatly appreciate the efforts they've put into this over the last several months. there were a couple of comments made by speakers tonight, watershed moment, legacy was mentioned several times. and they are all quite appropriate on this. i think the department has been an unbelievable job. i have a cardboard box like this that i had to bring in with material. it was just amazing. this is a work in progress. the group of san franciscoians that went down to -- san franciscans that went down to san diego to watch the preliminary races, made

suggestions. those suggestions started to be incorporated. those are being incorporated. what happens next year, 2012 and the results and the experiences will be incorporated in what happens in 2013. but that's not the end of it. and several people have mentioned what happens to the city and the waterfront after 2013 is truly what's going to be amazing about this. i appreciate it monique moyer's comments that this will be the first time there has been a monetarily infusion into port properties in at least 50 years. and of course, something has massive as our port is that is extremely, extremely important. and not to take away commissioner antonini's word on

this. but i'm going to move to certify the final e.i.r. as adequate objective and accurate. >> second. [laughter] commissioner olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i just wanted to show the public that this is the environmental review documents. if you were wondering if it's adequate or accurate, and i want to thank the port and all our staff and all the stake holders that have been involved. i think the mitigation and monitoring report and e.i.r. really y -- high lites the best thinking. it was said from one of the members when she said that the air quality will be better after the america's cup which is astounding. i have a lot of faith and what is included here will be implemented and will make things better. i was looking a little bit at

some sequa stuff and section 21002. it just says that for don'ting feasibility -- to substantially lessen our void that once our agency has documented significant measures to lessen son impacts the agency need not under sequa don't every mitigation squeem brought to its attention. and i just say that to say obviously things are going to change because of the negotiations, the conversations that are happening with the environmental community and that will continue to happen through this process. and so sequa does not require that you follow everything here. and it con temperature -- contemplates that you look further. chrisward won. they rejected the -- it does not

require the inclusion of a draft or final e.i.r. the law clearly contemplates otherwise for the mitigation or report is required to be adopted but basically that nothing in sequa and the guidelines requires for the monitoring report be in the e.i.r. the real action is taken when the sequa findings are don'ted by the port commission. so we are not don'ting the sequa findings at this point. what we're doing isn't an appealable action but i wanted to bring those things to life and say this is why i think this document is adequate and accurate and i'm really happy that a lot of the people in the community are working real hard to make sure that this is a great america's cup experience from a public speck taylor raising this point but just the fact that our bay will be celebrated in the way that it hasn't been and the investment that we'll have going forward

will far outweigh some of the negative impacts that we'll have along the bay. and i so i -- along the way. and i wanted to make that poircht. commissioner olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: normally the learge they are the more -- larger they are the more controversial. this project is remarkable because the e.i.r. has been tracking the project in motion. the project itself is changing because the boats have never been sailed and while there is precedent on observing the other races, what is going to happen in 2013 is something which nobody really knows about. and it's in the curiosity and in the way of standing together that an e.i.r. has been created. and while all of them might not be perfect, we at least have an understanding including an understanding of the ongoing

responsibility of everybody standing side by side. i've worked with some of the details an listened to other presentations and i've seen so much creativity and so much people trying to do something with almost nothing that i can wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the approval of this certification -- commissioner olague: i think everything has been said. so i just wanted to thank staff especially joy and obviously the mayor's office. i know joy that you spent a lot of hours for this and thank you for your work. so called a question? >> commissioner there is' a motion on the floor, the certify equation of the final impact report for the 24th america's cup. on that motion commissioner antonini? >> aye.

>> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. where are -- >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner antonini? >> the motion passes. [applause] >> thank you. commissioners, you're not finished. you want to take a moment to let them clear out? commissioners you have before you commissioners -- any commissioner questions -- >> ok. are there any? >> no one has anything. >> not tonight. ok. commissioners. you have the director's announcement and the review of

the past year's events. >> there's no report tonight, thank you. >> thank you. >> are there -- is there -- commissioner olague: is there any general public comment on items not on today's calendar? no, seeing none, general public comment is closed and the meeting's adjourned. >> thank you. happy holidays.