>> thank you, everyone it is 110 and we're back in session thank you very much for your parish we took a little bit longer than thirty minutes so public comment is closed. but before i turn to my fellow commissioners like to request staff to present a response to some of the comments we've heard thank you madam chair rosales and sally for the record

commissioners we we have a few staff that wants to respond and chris concerns from the planning department. >> good afternoon chris censure with the environmental planning and i'm part of team of city staff and consultants who have spent the last year and a half presenting the environmental impact report that is before you today, i want to talk brief about that process and the function of ceqa the function of second is to provide informed decision making by the public and public agencies about the environmental consequences did proposed project an informational document its purpose it disclosure about the

environmental facts i feel strongly that the team and many of the expert consultants and city staff and the city attorney's office month contributed to the drafting of the final environmental impact report that is before you today meets the requirements of ceqa that it thoroughly dollars all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project it identifies feasible utilization measures that reduces the impacts and it identifies feasible alternatives that would constitutionally lessen this project the responses to comments document which together with the draft supplemental or subsequent environmental impact report formed the final eir if you certify it today in response to

the comments we've received on the draft documents both during the public comment period as well as after the public comment period through october 7th at this point we had a cut of we'll respond to in the response comment document and finalize that document we've received a number of comments since october 7th we responded to all comments we as of yesterday afternoon in writing and provided with the late comments and responses that have come in since that time starting 6:00 p.m. last night and earlier todays hearing we received a number of additional comments we have not prepared written responses to those comments, however, i wanted to assure you

this team of technical specialists and attorneys and city staff have reviewed the comments submitted and we do not in our opinions our expert opinions building that the materials that have been submitted in the last 15 hours or so raised any new issues or didn't contain new information that would alternate any of the conclusions with want final eir put before you the nature of the information and comments in these late supplementals can be characterized as a disagreement among experts are issues we have already respond to in the resident to comments document or addressed in the draft eir now with that said, there are a few

specific topics i want to provide clarification on as to how we responded 0 to those comments and how the issues raised in those comments are addressed in the document we've provided to you and to bring that up i'll we made a quick list of the topics that are covered by the comments that have been received again in the last 15 hours or so and cover transportation and quality and noise and green house gas emissions and 9 hundred certification and wetlands ohio hydrology and wastewater, utilities and sgroe i didn't and recreation wind and shadow urban decay the process land use economic issues, and

environmental justice and social economic issues of that topic there are no new issues that have not been already addressed and analyzed in the final eir documents in the technical analysis and documents are in the record we've provided on a couple of points one additional eradicate or really a minor change mitigation ab q t that measure reads pay a mitigation fee for the air qualify management division 2345u6789, 20118 thousand plus for the per year

we want to change that not to exceed to no less than and we have discussed it change with the project sponsor and the project sponsor has indicated agreeable to that change the mitigation measure is patricia incorporates to a late comment letter we've received from the bay area air quality management that letter and the response to that letter is obtained in the packet we've distributed we didn't make that hang to the measure that was on oversight it focused on the amount of the offset mitigation fee and the planning department staff and air quality in house consultants are ongoing discussion with the district

about, about the amount of the fee for the draft wasn't we're continuing those discussions and clearly have not reached a final agreement we will continue those discussions we will very much like to reach on agreement with the air district on a workable ouch set fee as a mitigation approach no time for this project but use for further projects having said that, in recognition of the fact we've not reached a final agreement with the measure we added another option to that measure that is a change in the response to comments document that additional option allows the sponsor to have the opportunity emissions with alternatives to enter into an agreement with their district as an offset i wanted to note the city has done

exactly that and used the mitigation measure approach previously for the america's cup event that eir included an emissions offset project to offset emissions generated by the events of traffic and spectator event that offset was a power facility port to dry dock facility that allows ships at dry dock to make up to grid power as opposed to their diesel menus and offsets significant you know amount of emissions that is an ongoing benefit to the city and residents in the area and hallway has been

implemented successful we feel providing that second option further support of feasibility of the emissions offset let's see on the topic of air quality we also want to note that as a result of project prelims of the draft and the finally, those are refinements around the construction process for the project including additional dewatering and the onsite treatment of hazardous soils by the pug mill a slight increase in the average daily construction emissions about 2 to 5 percent oh, as well as these emissions will be contributed to the construction of the center

platform variance with some you know additional structure relate to the variance we believe that that 3 to 5 percent increase in the emissions is not a substantial increase in the driving or recorded in the draft eir we'll note the off society mitigation measure that was discussing will more than offset the emissions that mitigation measure is offsets both the operational emissions that succeed the emissions during construction of the project so we feel that issue has been if he addressed in the eir in response to the document. >> with respect with the ucsf

comments regarding improvements to the mariposa pump station to address did ongoing and existing wastewater contribution issues in the project area the sf puc has and the department of public works planning department staff and consultants and usf has again been in discussion over those issues before the publication of the draft the puc has implemented as voted in the response time in the document interim fixes that addresses the contribution capacity shortfall in the near term and is right now working on finalizing the design of the project which will be implemented long before the capacity of the current system

is exceeded and just explain that further little analysis in the draft eir in response time demonstrates that sufficient capacity is available now and will be available at the time the marina project is implemented only with cumulative build out of the plan and usf planned falls there's an issue with the further structure capacity that has not been missed the city is working on it fully intends to provide the required infrastructure before it is needed let's see - just want to make sure inch caught all the tops with respect to comments late comments about the ability of the eir to rely on compliance

with the city's mpd s water charge district under the clean water for the southeast water treatment plant again, the concerns raised about a record of or history of violations we think that a bit of a miss characterization that concern was noted in the comments received on the draft eir we've provided responses on that topic and had discussions with sfpuc staff and really we think of more accurate characterization of that history is that the regulatory process in the permit establishes discharge limitations things occur with a

regulatory process that the sfpuc complies with to report any things to take corrective action that is really in the sfpucs opinion you know to be expected to the regulatory process and really finds of the how the regulatory process is supposed to function and then finally it wanted to address some concerns raised about the enforceability and prelims of the mitigation manufacture and the improvement measures and candidates on the part of sponsor and city through that project in our approval actions one of the action before you is if you were or to certify the

eir to adopt an m m rp for the monitoring for the program the m m rp provided a detailed and lengthy documentation of the parties responsible for the implementation of you know all the mitigation and improvement measures as well as the parties responsible for the monitoring and reporting and what the compliance actions are in this case we have gone further we normally do we have constituent in order to improve and simplify the ongoing monitoring process for the m m rp report to be submitted to the project sponsor reports on the current status of compliance with all the measures in the m m rp and an introduction to the m m rp which identifies the enforcement tools

available both your commission and to other city departments that have you will be designating people responsibilities to and they are robust and adequate in my view in addition to all that the planning department has recently created and has staffed now a new position flextime position dedicated solely to my attention monitoring and condition compliance something that we have the capability to do in the past more resources to dedicate to that function. >> i think that's all i have nonetheless you have questions about the eir or the

environmental review process. >> i think we have on those topics no questions right now. >> thank you very much i'll go back to shelly. >> next adam to address some information and after that another individual to address. >> thank you, commissioners director bohe for your attendance to detail two items related to the fiscal feasibility analysis a letter from the controller's office submitted to the record with the analysis of the tax increment available from the project and the amendments alternatives to the project we've received this documents received late last night one hundred 4 pages from a law firm including an analysis from the marina consultants

questioning some portions of our feasibility i wanted to note a few things into the record the report august's the bio technical is a better use for the city and their 5 reasons we disagree further the benefit to the city provides a means to improve the city's infrastructure and the induced demand the consultant compares 2 thousand added biotech employees excluding the staff that serve the concessions and janitorial and other functions up to two hundred and 20 times per year and no transportation improvements for the light rail and the cross over track and signage for the neighborhood or the sfmta he attribute