and the mitigation measure suggested the one mitigation measure that was suggested for -and avoidable impact for 38 of them happens to be the extend -- to extend transit service, ntr-2. and the report also stated that funding for extended time of service are not identified and secured and therefore its implementation must be considered at this time. i think we all understand that given this bunt -- budget of the city and budget of muni. but i wish that because of the totality of the impact and so many of them, i just wish that planning staff would consider ending more information as far as alternatives as to how we can or possibilities of how we can -- transit service can be extended. would it be a function of the soon to be newly created treasure island transportation management agency which is supposed to be appointed by the board of supervisors? will it be one of the responsibility of the transportation management agency to oversee and guide us in the future in developing policies, mitigation measures, and how we can afford it. maybe we can also consider giving some options so that

when we talk about mitigation, we are talking about the mitigation to the individual and the family and to our community. these dollars are critical and essential to addressing the disparities that occur as a direct result of the consumption and over use of alcohol. when you have negative consequences that impact the fire, police, and health department, they are impacting individuals, children, families. everyone from the community that i work in recognizes the need for this see. the committee i am working on currently in the south the sector is overburdened by disease, a chafee and aids, and we need the support that this legislation will allow us to receive. the people of san francisco deserve and have a right to health care, this is not a privilege. >> thank you very much. >> hello, supervisors. i am the executive director of the latino commission. i would like to say that since 1991 we have been providing services to those who have used and misused alcohol. our concern is that we are over represented. we probably have half or 44.9 of the cases which are specifically to latinos. we ar

we know we have -- there's mitigation issues. but going back again, the public should understand, this is a document to look. how do we look at the alternatives? >> a couple of things. >> i forgot you were sharing a mike here. >> i also got the shortest seat. anyway. i'm a little taller than i really am here. in any case, i'd like to support the two-week extension. i would like to make a motion to do that. i can't remember how we do this -- >> i was about to say that one of the few prerogatives of the chair. i have discussed it with board chair owen and we have two weeks additional until, if my check of the calendar is correct, september 8. >> thank you. i have additional comments i'll submit in writing and not take up more time. i thank mr. elberling with his observation with respect to the navy's evaluation. and since my area of expertise happens to be in that direction, some of my comments will be focused on that as well as perhaps transportation and other land use. thank you. >> very good. thank you. the other comments i was

in favor of the mitigation fee. particularly, i want to talk about how the mitigation fee affects me. coordinators have been cut because of the budget. and i think that money will go back into the community, for those service providers, and they get hired to work with those used. i urge you to support this. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> oh. i mix -- work with different types of youth. i will put it out there. this is a great moment. this is a great opportunity. i do not know what we are thinking of. if we have that chance, we have this opportunity to show the we are continuing to support those. by passing this fee, then this is going to sit a great -- set a great example. thank you. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker. >> really well voiced from the previous speaker. thank you. my name is -- and i am talking also about my partner. there were problems to do up of use in the family. that is one use that i am speaking about strong support for the mitigation fee. listening to the chief today, i was

plus, the fact that it does not address in terms of any programming or any money put aside for mitigating chronic inebriants. we would prefer to see at least some kind of part of this money allocated towards alleviating this problem, whether it is sort of just providing cost recovery it without really addressing the causes and how we might be able to address these in a more positive manner. i think those were all things we were very concerned about, and we still remain concerned. president yee riley: commissioner clyde, you have some concerns, as well. vice president clyde: at this point, my concerns are pretty well documented. it will be reviewed annually. this is a concern because the allocation of these costs according to the nexus study, it is caused some attributed to alcohol, and if you heard the department presentation, they are saying, and i have heard it echoed in the supervisors' chambers, that they believe that the costs attributable to of all are significantly greater, so that leads me to believe that this fee will be increased, and i would like to know about what the increase

now we have the motion. >> i would like to move that we are not supporting the alcohol mitigation fee as presented at this time. president riley: do we have a second? >> i second. president riley: all right. those in favor. motion carries. next item, please. >> did you have any additional notes for staff as we've included our previous correspondentence so it's in your pocket as well as notes that we've compiled from the business community and other stakeholders. >> i think the letter we sent on august 3 still is relevant. the points that we make there, we'd kind of like to send those back out again. and then, commissioners, there's some additional notes in terms of discussions that have been had. that, again, to reiterate what commissioner clyde had noted is that the controller's economic impact report does not include the cost, which the wholesalers have said publicly that they will be passing on the costs, between 10% and 20%. then for the business, that means then that will then increase as commissioner clyde had said, this amount of sales tax, and then there's additional impact fe

commissioner o'brien: and the lack of an end game to mitigate, you know, get rid of the problem. commissioner dooley: do we have everything covered? you can read it? can we just quickly run through it? vice president clyde: i think we should. forgive me if i'm slow but i'm slow. can we still collate comments? the period of between the next board of supervisors hearing and we will have a legend policy meel meeting, we will have another meeting. with -- are we able to incorporate comment from the public into our recommendations through this period, through this open comment period? you know, for a final letter? a final set of recommendations? executive director dick-endrizzi: should the legislation, i mean, what the legislation and policy can do is amend or update, provide updated information that it would like the board of supervisors to consider. vice president clyde: that is my concern. with the fast timeline and our attempts to get more information, you know, i think there may be additional comments or suggestions that we will be able to make in the future. commissioner dooley:

car sharing won't mitigate. that the thing that will mitigate that are the things this commission's spoken to numerous times. it was in the c-3 legislation. there should be a fee on parking spaces in excess of the minimum and that should go towards the things that really do mitigate the effects of those additional trips. the cycling, transit and walking. those are the things that -- those are the modes that are impacted by excess automobile trips, not car sharing. we say, you know, stop putting projects in excess of the minimum but then also the mitigation for that should be really bike, pedestrian and transit money and projects that protect road space for those modes. second recommendation is that both commercial and residential spaces should be allowed to be voluntarily converted. again, we're saying there's minimum parking requirements for commercial uses. what the effect of the proposed policy is, you're saying, no, that should be reserved for a drive-alone commuter when instead it could be used to house a c

letter and what was listed in that letter were items of concern raised by the fta that need to be mitigated and addressed prior to receipt of the full fund and grant agreement. since that letter, when it was received in january of 2010, the agency as a whole has been working very closely and cooperatively with the federal transit administration to address every item in that letter and continues to meet with the fta monthly to resolve or mitigate each item in what is called a full fund and grant agreement p road map that has been developed in concert with the federal transit administration. some of the items you've raised like the risk management program we have implemented a very sophisticated risk management program that has identified over 100 elements in that program and the agency is in the process of addressing, relieving, mitigating or transferring some of those risk elements so that as a program matures and it migrates from final design into heavy civil construction, the risk process has been identified and mitigations are put into place before the full fund and grant agreement. and

and the mitigation

instead of developing small mitigation sides, et they recommend mitigation. what we have found is to say let's consolidate all of these small pieces for different kinds of habitats and come up with a really nice large piece of land that is basically habitat compensation, and the agencies all support this approach and are working with us to develop the specifics of these. so to go to the specific sites, the walk site is in the upper alameda creek, near the upper of the meeting creek. -- upper alamitos creek. -- alamitos -- alameda creek. it also has the creation of new seasonal wetlands. what grazes there? cows. president maxwell: who do they belong to? i have the project manager. >> good afternoon. will lease the land. president maxwell: we are upgrading some of the improvement? >> we are upgrading it for a good habitat for endangered species and create the new seasonal wetlands, which would not be possible if you have the cows running around. president maxwell: ok. >> and the goldfish pond is actually in the southern part of alamitos county -- alameda county

the administration costs would be the costs for administering the alcohol mitigation program.o in the city and county of san francisco, we have an environment, a tourism environment, an environment that has a strong night life. i think it is conducive to people having a lot of fun, but it is also an atmosphere that allows for individuals to perhaps over consume alcohol. we are looking at how to establish a fee to help recover the costs that the city incurs from an over consumption of alcohol. where korea applied this feat, one area appear -- one area to apply this fee, small retail businesses, operating bars, small liquor stores, or convenience stores in san francisco. we want to make sure we are applying the fee at the wholesale and distributor level. one reason behind that was because at the retail level, especially recently with tobacco, the fee that was applied last year, it was a really big issue for a lot of retailers, and in my conversations with some retailers, it was something that they wanted to avoid. we also thought it was the best place to look at the institution,

some privacy impact should be assumed with development but that unusual privacy impact should be mitigated. seeing as there is more than 40 feet separating the house from the 203 los palmos property, the department does not find there to be any unusual privacy impact and last, the majority of the qur's remaining concerns are not planning department-related issues. the department's residential design team has reviewed the project and finds it to be on balance, consistent with the general planning code and residential design guidelines. the r.d.t. does not find the project to contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. however, it has determined that this warrants a full analysis. under the commissioner's pending legislation, this would be referred to you since it contains new construction on a vacant lot. nonetheless, the department recommends that you do not take d.r. and approve the new construction at 203 los palmos as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor. excuse me.

community stabilization fees, a fee established in 2005 as an amendment to the planning code for mitigation of the impact of residential development in the area. the fund must be used to addressed various impact of development and can be used for affordable housing, economic and work-force development, community cohesion, and approve meant -- improvement to infrastructure of the neighborhood. there was a committee founded to make recommendations to the sport on the expenditure of money deposited in the fund. we were before this committee earlier this year with the first round of expenditures from the fund. we just completed grand negotiation and the first contracts -- grant negotiation and the first contracts are starting july 1. these are mostly in the form of grants to community organizations. harrison fremont, which is managed by the emerald fund, approached us to consider recommending that some of the funds generated by this project be targeted toward deeper affordability at the site. the proposed 49 units are rental and will be made available at 30% chairperson avaloami. they represent