will prepare and publish the document which contains the comments. publication will be followed by certification of the e.i.r. at a hearing before the planning commission. this ends my presentation. city staff are available to answer clarifying questions you may have. i would suggest the item be open for public testimony and commission comment on the draft e.i.r. >> thank you. we will open to public comment. we are commenting on the draft e.i.r., not approving the project today. we will have more hearings on the project. comments can be sent to the planning department anytime before november 19. i have a couple speaker cards. ron and catherine. if others would like to speak please line up and approach.

mr. mcgill. >> i am ron mcgill. i read the dir. not as you thoroughly as when i got up there. i have toured the site twice and i have great hopes for the development. it has been in the process for some time is still in the early stages. this afternoon i will touch two important areas public open space and shadowing both with roots in density. i amspectly not including the immediate waterfront area in the remarks. that acreage is separate to be developed appropriately. this project is private land, not port land. pier 70 and the basin. because of did you difference the power plant space is under far less legal restraint and becomes immense value to the general public as well as to those who will live and work

there. the ability to create programmed space, fesfid appealeds and -- specified fields must take high priority. other than a single soccer field located on a building's roof, the plan is basically void of real usable programmable open space for the development itself or for the general public. as to that general public the power plant site is adjacent to the fastest growing residential neighborhood in san francisco. references to the 2014 recreation and open space element of the san francisco general plan rely on the 2010 census number us and no longer has any viable relationship to this development. nor is there consideration of other developments on the planning department's schedule. in my opinion, this concern is

not sufficiently explored in the d e.i.r. my second point is the densities and heights in the alternatives. although not specifically under the san francisco general plan, urban design element or central water front plan. open space shadowing. those concepts must remain valid. subjected certain alternatives shads companying -- shadowing before buildings is a problem. i will have more specific remarks as to that at a later date. i do not believe the dd e.i.r. provides shadowing. it leads to density and building heights. i know we need more density,

however, i believe the dir alternatives do not sufficiently explore the effect this density there have on the community and its resources. >> thank you, mr. mcgill. >> i am catherine petrine representing san francisco heritage as mike could not attend. heritage is closely following the proposed project i continuing to meet with the sponsor to express the historic resources at the power station site with the exception of the smokestack in unit 3 none of the resources will be retained as part of the overall development plan. based on the information in the draft e.i.r. it would erase traces of the industrial development making it difficult

to engage in what is possible in historic preservation, financial and technical feasibility. in this regard there is a disconnect between the timing and pace and the availability of central information needed to as session the feasibility of the options. with those in mind, the heritage offers the following comments. to the extent that the project will require up zoning to achieve desired dense de, and rate of return. heritage believes it the warranted to expect public benefits for resource protection. heritage feels th the preservatn would link the site to pier 70 development and third street district and retain the authenticity of the industrial character and materiality the project sponsor stated as

priority. we recognize retaining all of the contributors may not be possible. the size and scale of station a telling the history and provides a strong visual livening to the third street industrial district. heritage feels the alternative us to retain station a do not exemplify the best approach at this stage. heritage prefers options to station a within the original foot print. we are compiling ex augustpels of similar successful reuse projects and are aware of one on roosevelt island in new york city where this was approved and with the project receiving a 20 purse historical preservation tax credit. they are planning for a design

for the site. heritage supports other economic incentive us such as talks increment financing to enable a greater level of preservation on the site. happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am zack brown. i am the san francisco resident for six years and walking tour guide in dogpatch neighborhood. i support this project. living in the mission i struggled with housing. i fought off evictions and density? the housing is important to me and a lot of the people i know here as well. i hope to someday own a home here and live here for a long time. i lover the city. this excites me we are adding density where i want to live.

as walking tour guide of the dogpatch neighborhood i have seen changes in the growth of the neighborhood from historical preservation and density. a lot of developers added positive value to the places there. a lot of new shops and new places are popping up now that more housing is available. it is a positive trend i have seen. i see projects like this continuing the growth and that path in the neighborhood. myself i look forward to seeing more density, more historical preservation and reuse and more people caring about the places as they move in and live and work in the neighborhood. i have been part of the public outreach and brought other people into the mix. everything has excited me from density, historic preservation

and positive impacts that will continue from development like this in the neighborhood. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president of the boosters association. i am glad to talk about one of the less controversial projects. we shouldn't mistake that from absence of controversy. as you can see from the community members today. they are armed with the data. i will not get into the e.i.r. so much. they have the specifics. talk but the context in which our comments are madeti made particularly by members of my organization. they want a project successful for itself and the surrounding community. that motivation will express itself in two ways. excitement because as with pier

70 to the north. this will open up the waterfront in exciting ways. the other way it will express itself is concern. not just but the magnitude of the impacts today. as you all well know in our neck of woods we are accustomed to working through these massive impacts. that is based on a process that began with the preferred project design. despite scores of meetings, it remains with the preferred project design. this does not address neighborhood concern and the impacts of the project. i home this process -- i hope though addresses our community concerns and results in a project the community can be excited by. we look forward to continuing the work with american barrel and the city to ensure these concerns are remedied. thank you.

>> next speaker, please. you. >> hello, commissioners. i direct the archive project. we have been in the neighborhood over 30 years. i am concerned about the future of the brick buildings on the site. building the future does not mean throwing away the past. the brick buildings havesistorical national sigany cal to the explosion of industry starting in the 1860s. until 1913 the most important power plant on the west coast. p.g.e. has 99 years on the site. irish hill is to the north and the power station was crucial in the rebuilding of san francisco following the destruction of 1906. these buildings are part of the only historic district in san

francisco which combines industrial and residential communities and gives context to the remaining sugar waiver houses across the street. i was heartened by mark bueller and the heritage strong support for saving as many historic brick buildings as possible. the proposed project would demolish four brick buildings extending the historic period to include unit three and the stack. i challenge anyone in the world to make the case the 1960s were as significant as the earlier period on his site. saving the '60s structures is fine if priority is given to the cluster of much more significant brick acknowledges. most people have no idea what is on the site.

the brick buildings are inaccessible on power station tours. my article in the view can you i will give you copies of today was an attempt to raise awareness. we are circulating a save the historic brick buildings petition now. they want it to reflect the site history but tear down the few remaining buildings that are part of the history makes no sense. if associate capital intend to merge with pier 70 to the north. why is it preserving fewer historic buildings? >> why does it offer a smaller percentage of open space? some mitigations are insulting. can anyone imagine that books printed on demand or videos would compensation for the loss

of historic structures. there is no reasonable range of alternatives. saving the brick buildings should be a priority. it could be tennis courts or basketball courts or dargen. the history in these buildings belongs to everyone and should not be demolished. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live on 22nd and tennessee streets for over 15 happy years. three blocks from -- we like to call it doug patch power station. i am a passion nat and proud san francisco and i love dogpatch. i am here to show continued support for dogpatch powe powerzation.

as a you member of the organization. dogpatch organizer and i have seen amazing changes in growth all around the neighborhood. it is growing fast. new neighbors are moving in by the minute. it is exciting this. is why i support dogpatch power station project. dogpatch power station has been very active in our community. about their project for the past couple of years which they hosted numerous out reach workshops, extensive coordination with dna, public tours, community events, office hours at various dogpatch businesses. they are passionate about engaging with community and keeping us informed. what i find exciteds is future you open space, art space, green space which is much, much needed

in the great historical meaning of the area. like pier 70, dogpatch power station will enhance for the betterment of the east end neighborhood which is part of our amazing city, san francisco. have a good evening. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am emily pearl. i am project architect here representing lundberg design. we are five minutes walk from the project site. we have been there for 20 years, myself for eight. i have extensive experience designing projects along the san francisco waterfront. several people in my office are dogpatch members and residents. we think the proposed power station development, mass being,

programming are a breath of fresh air in comparison to mission bay that are single program, mid-rise structures with little pedestrian diversity and personality. in contrast, power density of the proposed project allows buildings says and sizes. it is appropriate solution for which the project team should be commended. we enthusiastically support this direction. the unit three hotel, in particular, is a strong idea. we think that the different experience of the bay or city it will provide both residents and visitors will be tremendous. the current nexus of hotel in the city is in a highly tourist area. a lot of people are not crazy about being there. it is active and provides public

amenities and reuse of the historical building. opening up the waterfront and place making and continuation of the existing waterfront is extremely important. it offers an incredible vantage point and different experience than we currently have of the waterfront. it strengthens the connection to the rest of the city with some of the best weather. the 60 % program of housing will create a variety of uses throughout the day and week, which will be very important. as we know and have heard, housing is desperately needed. i am a bay area resident. i have had friends and family in real estate based out of the city based on lack of housing.

i should mention we, myself percentlal lie love station a. it is fantastic. we need to remember that adaptive reuse needs to be financially feasible. to that end we are open to considering possibilities where that gets saved or ways to get saved, not at the expense of t e entire project. these are just used to show square footages and general placement. the efforts focused on making this go away should be focused on making a great tower with an incredible design that is slender and elegant. >> next speaker, please. >> i am catherine.

a resident of dogpatch neighborhood and executive board member. i live two blocks for the last 17-years. we have an open communication and supportive relationship with the developer and the whole team. when you are building a new village it takes time to plan within the current city to get it right, as you only get one chance. because you can build doesn't mean you should. we need to break out of set think you go anything goes to add more housing. think about quality of life for everyone here now and will come as the developments march down from mission rock to mission bay i pier 70, this site and hunters point. in regard to the d e.i.r. and project alternatives, i would

like to discuss the current population, homes i and how it relates to the rec. the public resources. the proposed project is demolishes buildings. the district is part of the only area of san francisco that combines industrial and residential communities. the commission recommended associate capital study way to capture and reuse parts of the buildings to ensure the story and character of the buildings are not lost. i know the developer and his team are working on the challenge. this would have been clear if viable alternatives would considered to reuse portions of the most important structures. i strongly urge reuse of walls happen to prevent wholesale demolition. it is in the old and new,

industrial and residential and gritty and natural. in terms of shadowing. the east west is unbroken massing of the open spaces and shadow and vistas of historic resource in the bay are obscured. shadow you go appears significant. mitigations should be provided in resign with set backs and air with cutaways, open site lines, streets that don't follow a simple grid. orienting buildings to optimize sunlights with larger breaks between the buildings. most importantly i public services especially community amenities need discussion. in the area and state you had

project objective for active uses. consideration should be given. >> thank you very much. >> acknowledged in the initial study. >> you can submit that in writing or give us your notes we will respond in the dir. you are done. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i am scott klein, a member of the dogpatch neighborhood. my wife and i have lived in dogpatch for seven years. very active in the neighborhood. i moved there because i chose to live there. i love the vibrancy of the neighborhood and take neighbors know each other and support each other. associate capital has come in and woven themselves in the neighborhood and tried to keep that in mind when building the

project. i will focus on what this bring to the neighborhood that isn't there now. particularly, the hotel with an amazing view from the topwith a roof bar open to the public. we don't have much south of the ballpark. the open space and shore access is going to be incredible with pier 70 and the park. we don't have a grocery store in dogpatch this. is to bring a large scale store to the neighborhood. it is much needed. it is clear across to whole foods. finally, i think the biggest amenity to the city is more housing. we all know what a problem that is in the city, thousand rents have gotten high. i have had a lot of friends leave. i would like to see more stay.

i support this project. [please stand by]

>> we want this to move forward as quickly as possible. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. >> we ran late and we had life to go back to. i'm here in support of one of the biggest things which is housing and what they are doing. i know there's been lot of discussions about views and about shadows. these are things that come living in the city. it's unavoidable.

i'm looking forward with the work what they are doing and making sure lot of our neighbors, like bayview, have more housing to come into and be able to merge the two. we're here in support and we really love what they are doing, there's a lot of concerns that lot of people are bringing. those are valid. just remember that, it's not the problem coming here with solutions. i'm sure they'll be more than happy to see what they can do within reason to make sure everybody in the th community fs heard. >> thank you very much. can we have the overhead please? >> good afternoon commissioners. he name is richard hudson. i've been a resident of potrero hills for over 50 years.

i watched the bay disappeared in front of me. i wanted speak to the concerns i have about the project, which is the construction of the public view. this photograph was taken from the corner of pennsylvania avenue and 20th street. if you drew a line up in the clouds where the 300-foot tower is, amassing of 200-foot buildings in that area will totally block out the bain the east bay hills. i think that the project is one of the earlier speakers said, should be revisited to open up the density of the massing. i'm not against developing the project. i think it's wonderful to open the water front. i don't think the waterfront -- the bay should be blocked off from public view. if any of you take a stroll down

the north end of the avenue, you'll see project that came up of the fontana apartments. they're only 17 stories high. that will give you an idea of how what a big massive block of buildings will do to the public view. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident of san francisco for over 26 years and a homeowner in dogpatch about three blocks about 17 years. i cannot say how excited i am to see this go up. to see the plans they put

together that have varied sizes and shapes that will add a different look what has become more cookie cutter look to new buildings. it's exciting to me and my neighbors. i saw 20 or 25 my neighbors here earlier, i think the key for me is seeing the interest and excitement from the developers and getting involved in the neighborhood and whether that's having office hours at local restaurants and participating and sharing their space for events or supporting a fantastic local nonprofit and offering them the space to have an opportunity to raise money, i consider these people from my

perspective white-hat developers. they're in it for the good of the city. there maybe specific issues that people have with density, etcetera. i know as hospitality professional, san francisco and somebody who employs between my two businesses, over 100 people that have more places for them to live and get out and enjoy the city, it's very important. that level of density is valuable to us. we'll have beautiful open places. we'll have places to go and opportunity to walk down the bay and enjoy that view up close and personal rather than as we saw up on the hill. it will be a dramatic difference. we had no access to that. i'm very excited to see it. i'm in full support. thank you. >> thank you very much.

next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is philip. i'm an architecture. i'm a member of the potrero booster development committee. unfortunately, the design presented by the developer is worse that we've seen. it combines some of the disappointing failings of recent development in thezy, demolishes historic resources and creates problems for the city that would have to address. the proposed project would demolish historic buildings that contribute to the third street industrial district. this greatly reduces the existing unique character of the area and forever loses to us a tremendous historic group of structures that are national significance. if these historic resources are preserved, they will be

encircled by building which tower over them casting shadows which belittle the original context of these structures. these buildings will be overwhelmed and cut off from the bay. the environment will be affected by permanent increase of ambient noise and the impact on air quality will be in violation of air quality standards, impacting regional air quality. this issue is precisely why the power plant was torn down. the design proposed will cast shadows on public open space nearly year around. it will result in the substantial shadowing of lower buildings as well and potentially limit flex buildings along 22nd street to office uses instead of housing and undesirable outcome that will skew the jobs, housing balance.

the layout of the project creates a grid that is very similar to the disastrous plan that has bemoaned in the mission bay development nearby. this layout presents an inflexible close and built-in environment that features large, unbroken blocks and contrast sharply with the proposed development at nearby peer 70. because of the east-west orientation of the central power station park and unbroken massing of the buildings throughout, much of the open space is in shadow. distance of historic resources and the bay are obscured. what is proposed creates the effect of a wall that substantially cuts off views of the bay. the e.i.r. shows that proposed project would add up to approximately 22,734 net new

residents. the density proposed is comparable to the current density in manhattan. we are virtually taking the population of an american town and putting it down on 29-acre site. >> thank you very much. >> this is substantially more than the nearby peer 70 project. >> thank you very much. >> rick hall, chair resident and member of the boosters of development committee. i spoke earlier at general public comment on the need for additional planning process to help analyze what ceqa doesn't. i think what you're hearing today and what you see in this e.i.r. really does show we need a different tool. since we're looking at the

e.i.r., it should be as best as it can be. the population growth in this e.i.r. omits indian basin, the medical offices, uber offices at 1455 third, the exchange within a half mile radius. it does not include proper population analysis. some cases, people impose sort of abag planned bay area growth projections. those are useless at neighborhood levels. there e.i.r. does not comply with the growth plans under the ian plan.

instead, it discusses amending central waterfront plan of the eastern neighborhoods plan. well, those are maxed out. in 2017, essentially as determined by the monitoring report. projects brought forward must adhere to community plan not rendered meaningless as suggested by this e.i.r. the scoping by the e.i.r. itself is flawed. ithis project also disrespects the desires of san francisco people by scoping a 300-foot luxury tower along the waterfront. i understand, they have the right to do that. you don't have to approve it.

thithis deir neglects to provida real optimistic option. it makes the developers preferred option the only viable project. i understand it's all done with regard to historic preservation, what about an alternate that is a reduced density alternate and not just based on historic preservation issues. the project itself ends up unavoidably impacting. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is guy carson. i'm a long term small business owner. i consult in the night life and entertainment space. i originally would come here and

today and tell you how excited i was about the 20 new restaurant, bars an cafe and assembly space that this village envisions and how it's one of the first time we've had a good solid plan for fun which we've been railing about for years. it's safe and sensible. we think it make a perfect compliment to dogpatch and help to complete it and make a vital place to be. rather though, i like to talk about preservation. i know the developer. i sold him a business up on market street. i would say -- i can bring up 25 suites to testify to this. he's been a remarkable partner in preservation. he brought in almost $5 million funding to redo the swedish american home which was a historic landmark last year.

i would say all the swedish society, i attended an award ceremony this week, they're thrilled with the love and devotion that he has for that building for a buildings old and venerable. i've known him now for five or six years. he's been completely consistent with this. i think he'll honor that within this community. i think preservation is going to be a big issue. we have to weigh some of the these buildings, basic in ruins. it will be better used in other ways for a community, for housing projects and i spoke with the developer at length on monday night about housing that he has planned for homeless mothers and etcetera. he's an upstanding guy. he knows more about preservation than anyone does.

that's my peach. >> speech. >> next speaker please. >> i'm president of san francisco victorian alliance. i will keep this short. >> we've got more [laughter]. >> i'll still keep it short. there's a preservation alternative that gets all the metrics, all the housing and all the area and does full preservation of the historic assets is obviously good. the h.p.c. was thoughtful in making that their first recommendation. i endorsed that. every time we do one of these big projects and incorporating the old into it and making the whole project richer because it embraces the history and creates

something more than it would be if we hadn't done that. you have to applaud creative efforts to do that. again, to keep it short, i'm at two minutes. please, save the brick buildings. they are part of the history. they define the area. please, support that. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm i'm a homeowner for 21 years. i like to begin that i'm opposed to the current proposal at the potrero side due to lack of public community benefits. the increases of negative impacts which we've been talking about a lot. i want to urge the commission to

order time out to this proposal and to all future projects along third street until these impacts that are deteriorating our neighborhood's quality are mitigated. today this draft, e.i.r. ignores all right now, the realtime evidence of the impacts that are caused by massive overdevelopment in eastern neighborhoods. highlights of the concerns that e.i.r. are transportation and circulation. this project will be contributing to the traffic gridlock that we're experiencing. this project will substantially increase transit demands that could not be accommodated by extension of public transportation.

the result is substantial and unaffordable public transportation operating cost that cannot be mitigated to anything less than significant deteriorating levels. the proposed improvements to public transit are uncertain. funding is uncertain. i crome the plan -- i encourage the planners to look at something more creative.

it's using the sf guidelines analysis, which is a very long time ago. i like to talk about traffic briefly. there's adequate analysis of noise, air quality, greenhouse gases and emergency vehicle accidents. they are using outdated guide lines. this project is very private. i'm seeing 17% of the entire building area is for parking of this project. which is ridiculous. >> thank you very much.

>> i'm speaking behalf of potrero booster. e.i.r. must seek alternative. the range of project alternatives in this draft e.i.r. is not adequate or reasonable. every alternative has been burdened with inherent loss that limit the feasibility and ability to mitigate significant impact. the alternative should have included reduced defensety alternative. which was requested during scoping specifically an alternative with similar height and zoning control. instead of reduced program alternative was analyzed. this is not the same thing that's reduced density alternative. it contains same density and it locks up the buildings, historic buildings, lack of appropriate

context with ample open space and all the open space will be deeply shadowed by buildings as tall as 200 feet, limiting much needed recreational opportunities. although the reduced program alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the planning department already stated that the h.p.c. hearing will not meet the objectives. shadowing will be much worse in open space and the integrity of historic building will be severely compromised. each partial preservation a. might mitigate on historic resources. but none adequately reduces other significant impacts. as far as historic preservation goes, they all fail miserably,

prioritizing the 1965 unit three over the most historically significant structure. by default we're left with the proposed project, a poorly designed development providing few community benefits, a project that will obliterate a precious part of our waterfront history and permanently impact our quality of life. we urge the planning department to work together with us and associate capital to develop a more reasonable alternative that adequately addresses significant impacts and provides a real and lasting benefit to our community. thank you. >> thank you very much. any additional comments? ms. foote? >> ty it'i think it's importanto think about the costs of a

project like this. lot of people are talking about the historical preservation aspect. i recommend you go out and visit it. if you go out invisit it, you can see how much history is being lost by it rotting away. you can't really visit and can't enjoy a historic artifact unless it's infused with life, unless it's redeveloped and becomes something worth visiting. if we're talking about preserving the brick buildings, that's where the housing has the potential to go. we're talking about cutting the bit of housing in this project and we're talking about preserving something that is a rusting hulk of industrialism. it reminds me of places you used to club and have illegal parties back in the day when i was cool. i would not say a a rusting post

had-industrial , i mean it's cool. i did club there. we can do better. we can redevelop these places into something that people can enjoy everyday. what is the point of our waterfront if it is not infused with life? people should be living there. i don't believe this frankly crap about how we can't increase our public transportation and run more bus lines and infuse this area with a transit-oriented walkable community. i think it's great. we're talking about dumping a whole town right there. that's phenomenal. that's what we need to happen next. we need more life in our city, not a rusting hunk of junk. keep the stack, that's cool. have the hotel built around it, that sounds cool. please do not listen to the people who are telling you they want less of is dentsty and housing. the thing they're putting up is the housing aspect of this

project. if we lose that, this project will not be worth it. please, preserve the housing package of this and make sure that we do get more transit. make sure that this expire community -- entire community continues to take history and thrive. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm a long time resident of the dogpatch. i'm here today to urge you to recommend a balance between alternative b, and a.m. alternative c. i like to include the unit 3 power block. we can have more open space if

we do not need to keep that power block. on the other hand, i would love to see the unit boiler stack of that later period preserved. it's an icon for our neighborhood in the city. anyone who stales in th -- sailn the bay. in general as far as the historic preservation, this development has given short to the importance of the physical preservation. i spoke at the h.p.c. hearing and at the hearing, it was concluded by one commissioner that very little preservation or nno preservation will be a nonstarter. i agree with that.

i want to comment on the 300-foot tower. it does not belong in this part of the water front. it will detract of theover power of the iconic stack. any new tower needs to have a considerably narrower footprint. what could happen there, does happen there. we shouldn't have that. the project a bit overprogrammed with too many language building- large buildings and not enough open space. additionally, the surrounding infrastructure need to be

carefully considered. the central waterfront is experienced gridlocked and accompanying air pollution and road safety issues. >> next speaker please. >> my name is bruce hughie. i'm property owner at dogpatch. you did his 12 others here earlier to speak for my neighborhood. i want to go on the record that we did have a team from dogpatch out. i live on 23rd street at indiana three blocks to the west of the power station site. power station is within dogpatch. many of us look forward to the addition of house, recreation and transportation option to fill in current gaps in the neighborhood. as many of us learned, dogpatch

is a neighborhood with gaps in neighborhood serving capabilities. lack of street lights, no sidewalks in many locations including along 23rd street to the west of the site. no community facility such as a library, athletic centre or community centre, some but limited green space with urban recreation. local property owner, myself included, reaction was creation of the green district to maintain current street park park within southern dogpatch. one recreation site is progress park that ope a opened in 2012 t exercisexercise -- offers an exe area. this is not enough.

recreation neighbors continue to discussions with the project sponsor on details of open space and those toug active uses. many children are in the neighborhood. ten years ago we had little. adolescences and those with families active senior services. public community services that serve multiple generations such as the community centre, library, athletic centre do not exist in dogpatch. but do exist in the neighborhoods to the west, up the hill to the south and built out in the north of dogpatch in mission bay. lastly, conservation of history is an ongoing priority in dogpatch. more is actually better for us. thank for your time today. >> thank you. any additional public comment on in the draft e.i.r.? seeing none, we'll close public comments. commissioners any comments on

the draft e.i.r.? commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: items concern me most are around the outdated transportation figures i think we struggle with when we get to these deirs. we're using 2002 data. i still struggle with that. i still like something in the record why we're continuing to use old data and what's the plan to start using better data? the other thing that's interesting from a transportation point of view that i liked is the fact that the project sponsor is going to fund capital expenditures to buses and bring people in and out of the project based on percent growth. the issue that i have with that, there's no operating funds

dedicated to that. there's some mitigation measures that's not backed up by money to run the thing. that concerns me. the third measure is a historic preservation. if we're asked -- we hav -- as r the alternatives to the proposed project, alternative c, really looks like it meets nearly everything identically to the proposed project. it allows us to preserve most of or all the buildings. i toured the site. the building a, i said to the developer, why would you spend lot of money trying to do something with this. perhaps heritage can show how you can do something with that

building. just dump a lot of money there. i like alternative c, i wanted to also to have a response on each one of the buildings themselves and why the need to actually demolish them what's having alternative is. he had some reasons around that. i like to have that detailed in the response to comment somehow. i'm concerned the pg& pg&etransmission station next door. they're not useable because of the electrical generating transmission activity. other thing is, i asked the project sponsor -- i think he's

done great preservation. he's been one of the most honest project sponsor developers i met. i asked him this morning, can we change the way the street goes to actually allow us to be more creative around preservation and the programming of the site. does it have to be continue blocking the street grid. there are couple of blocks there that seem very big. anything you can do around that. the last thing, i will submit more detailed comments, we talk about -- i mentioned this, we talk about hydrology, what will happen to the ground water. yet, i bring this up every time, because we're in the middle of having the state cut our water supply. how do we handle population growth in the face of curbi