we don't see this as a mitigation for direct construction. the result will be in net loss of habitat. the private land is in risk of developing. this is habitat that would not go away otherwise. >> i swung to be clear that you pay to million dollars. >> this is approximately $50 million for the bond funding. if you remember, this acquisition is private land and it goes into conservatorship in the incremental benefit. that is the thing that we're looking at, not litigation. this is required mitigation, this is a permanent requirement. it is a requirement for our project to go forward. where we cannot, we have to go out and acquire those new right of ways. this is the approach we have taken to mitigate for our construction project. i understand there is a lot that goes into this. each project has all of these little mitigation measures to. this is not just a collection of different improvements to it an ecological landscape approach to benefit the environment. >> i cannot understand from that presentation apparently, a perpetual maturing will b

we have consolidated the mitigation requirements and the budget. the projected cost is $54 million. 26 million or half is for construction. the show's the upper left hand side, the $8 million for the specialized account. this is for land acquisition. this is what we have budgeted. there are five-year and 10-year maturing requirements. we are preparing 11 contracts. this is because the different types of habitat, different timing and location and we will return for approval of two professional service contracts. two contracts to collect fees and use local genetic materials suited for the watershed. others include construction contracts and one for real estate services. we are implementing 3 goat rock as one of the sites. we are asking for the commission approval on the next item to find the habitat at efficient wildlife refuge. we're hoping to seek approval including the open space in the bay and one in alameda county. we proceeded with some habitat purchases assisted with the approval of the project. the special account which will be used to fund c

therefore, mitigation was not required. the part of the project is subject to review and approval by the historic presentation -- preservation commission, which uses the standards for their review and approval, which is why this mitigation was removed for this portion of the project. president miguel: thank you for the explanation. i will have additional comments, but before i do, is there anyone from the project sponsor's side that can set aside the rumors that have been appearing in the press regarding the future of the tonga room, just to get that off the table? >> my name is susan, and i represent the owners of the fairmont project. we do have a presentation for you a little bit later that i think we get to make. in that, we will address the tonga room. committed to trying to find a solution for the tonga that would allow it to thrive in a place where it could thrive. that is not at the fairmont hotel. they have entered into the letter of intent with a nightclub operator, as described by mr. bloch accurately, to take al

eir fails to adequately mitigate construction related issues. it fails to adequately address loading issues and traffic construction into this or that -- already congested neighborhood. it fails to address newly increased traffic and the increase schedules of construction on unscheduled subway and cable car lines that will be coming in 2011. the most glaring failure, however, is the lack of credible alternatives. focusing on the tonga room is not appropriate. is the knob hill historic district even a greater cultural district not only to san francisco but to millions of visitors from around the world? the budget sponsor has an opportunity to correct the mistake made with the 1961 tower and restore the neighborhood to its original splendor. instead, we are given a project that does nothing to realize this goal with no substantive alternatives. the sponsor has given no consideration to the people of nob hill, and we therefore request that this eir should not be certified. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is michael barrett. i have been a resi

through ceq aa and the permits, it mitigates impact. for wsip, we have come up with an innovative idea to add benefits and accomplish beneficial environmental planning. we are adding benefits to the habitat restoration. it is a way of consolidating so that instead of being scattered, they are in combined ecological areas that really provide greater benefits. today, we would like to concentrate on the construction compliance program and by regional -- sorry. regional habitat restoration. we will come back to you another time to present the impact avoidance measures and how we accomplished that process. the environmental construction management program -- ok. the environmental construction management program was prepared and is managed by our environmental construction management manager. she has been doing this for 20 years, many utilities programs for both water, electrical, and natural gas programs. we brought her in in june of 2008. we're very proud of it as it is unique for the city and for public utilities in california. she works c

some of that might require mitigation is with relations to sound, and a more intense use than what had been there previously. whatever we act upon, and whatever doesn't determine that this particular owner and family are going to be there forever -- therefore, what ever we determine will establish either a land use for them or send them through quite a bit more process. the question then also seems to be related to -- it occurred i guess from reading all the documentation that relates to the density of two units, the fact that there is no garage. this is a small alley, in essence, with a dead end. there is probably a number of concerns related to phase two. however, that is not before us. what is before us is based on essentially a single-family home. does it conform to the current bernal heights special use district codes? it does not. however, i could find it a modest non-conformance. the fact that the objectionable part is in the rear, in terms of what may have been a handy man or owner-initiated construction. that it has been removed, i find a acceptable, and that leads to my decis

triggers, and the supply mitigation -- that is clearly outlined in the project. that lies with whatever the entity is the goes over their allocation. what you adopt as far as that allocation will be pretty important to wholesale customers in december, before you take final action on what the surcharge might actually be in march. that is it for now, unless you have questions. president vietor: i think that we will hear from the public first, and then the commissioners can formulate some thoughts as we hear from either the wholesale customers or some other members of the public. >> madame president, we have 10 speaker cards. mr. neesar, councilman abreeka, mr. sweetland, mr. rosenbloom, mr. kuratori, mr. amrai, mr. druckmeir, ms. fong, ms. wizlick, ms. doubty, and mr. gordon. and i believe mr. jensen would like to wrap up. president vietor: if you can keep your comments to 2 minutes, that would be great. >> i would like to think the commission for this opportunity. our comments supplement a letter which submitted on november 5. i would like to start by thanking mr.

as part of an effort to mitigate regional traffic and transit-related impacts related to nonresident employment, planning code section 164 requires certain downtown buildings to also implement a local employment program designed to determine the number of -- and nature of jobs that will become available as a result of added downtown office development, to publicize to san francisco residents the availability of those jobs, to work with local schools and job training programs to create a labor pool of san francisco residents qualified to obtain jobs created by the downtown office development. to work with employers in the building to encourage hiring of qualified san francisco residents and to carry out other activities determined by department of city planning or its designee to be reasonable and appropriate in meeting the purpose of this requirement. commissioners, your packets include two resolutions. the first would authorize tmasf to continue providing brokerage services pursuant to planning code section 163 for transportation management. the second would authorize tmasf to forma

but that is one of the things that has been identified as the next step in the successful mitigation program. >> john malamut from the city attorney's office. i had a conversation with the mayor's office this morning and a program for mandatory retrofit for the wood frame soft story build some things still under consideration. it is considered as sort of in the draft stages right now but something they are still very interested in. >> is there a potential for the building department and experts in the field that we have on our code advisory group to start reviewing that process to make recommendations to the legislative body or the mayor's office, or do we have to wait for them to act? >> uh, if there is a legislative proposal from the mayor, the way the charter is set up it is something that would come through the entire process at the b.i.c. so the code advisory committee would look at it and it would eventually come before the buildi building inspection commission. the department or commission also has the opportunity to initiate legislation themselves. so that is sort of an alter

you mentioned this last time in just touched on it now, he said it was created as mitigation for overly dense development, and you are talking about the building on the south side of the hill, adjacent to the open space? >> yes. vice president goh: i am familiar with the area. those appeared to be some kind of townhouses are something that are built on a road that was created for that development. could you talk more about that? >> originally, that land and where the open space is now was all government housing, and then later public-housing. it was torn down. my understanding is the developers to purchase that prop. one it to do very dense development with the rear yards -- the developers who purchased at property wanted to do very dense development with the rear yards and half of the land was set aside with open space. essentially, the rear yard of the house is that occupied part view heights, to balance out the lack of rear yard. it was set up as a non-profit, volunteer board, to govern for the neighborhood. vice president goh: looking : looking2, there is a photograph -- looking at

required is future environmental review that should mitigate it. one thing that was raised, i recall commissioner sugaya commented on the draft eir and others did, too, you can't assume it's mitigated as significant. there's also analysis of the impact of the new tower on the current landmark. that's another area in which there's question. so what was requested by this commission is alternatives be considered including rehabilitation of the tower as opposed to the demolition and reconstruction. we also have presented as concerns that the project objective, in calling for demolition as an objective when really, it's a means to an end, not a proper ceqa objective and there's case law to support that. and the description that doesn't really show you what the project will look like is inadequate. so fundamental problems. it should be clear from the action the commission already took that there's fundamental revisions that the eir needed, including additional alternatives. no question these all relate to environmental issues [buzzer] >> they are not bey

program which is the pre-disaster mitigation program where each jurisdiction is allowed $2 million or $3 million per project per-year. so they are prioritized for this but we have in the submitted the application yet. commissioner walker: do we need a mandatory program -- it is not need to be? >> no, just prioritize that project and submit. president murphy: any further public comments? seeing none. commissioners? commissioner walker? commissioner walker: i want to thank a.t.c., capss, mrs. seek and the work that she has done. this is a vital step we have taken forward with the bold cooperation of the commission, i'm going to make a motion to support the extension of the capss as requested, the capps contract as requested. as it was stated, there is the report which is important, and i think that we've put enough urgency under this issue to get some closure on some of these reports. but now it is up to us. we have the information. we have a broad group across all stakeholder groups that came together to talk about this issue, to be able to identify where we are at as a city, what step

asked to adopt mitigation measures and a recording program as part of the ceqa findings following the eir certification. since the document has come to the attention of the planning department, a comment letter was not included, however, concerns raised were adequately addressed in the eir did not require discussion. a detailed memo responding to the, letter -- to the comet letter was distributed. inow i will readgÑ record. regarding the changes it represents corrections to typos and errors in the comments and responses document. this is underlined, text deleted so that the document will be shown with a strike force. it will be included in the comment letters and it does not present meaningful information that would alter the conclusions presented and the draft eir and does not trigger the need to recirculate the 6c to the ceqa act. i have copies of that four members of the public and the commission. it covers inclusion of the letter and is not present any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft eir. consequently, this will not trigger the need for reci

loss mitigation department first. is that correct? >> what difference our research companies call their different departments, madame chairwoman, i do not get into that. i think servicers should be well equipped to direct the call to the right place. >> just a moment. are you aware that it is almost impossible for a homeowner to get to the servicer that the system is now have screeners, this first contact person, and they had a cookie-cutter sheets and they ask a number of questions. if they determine that the ratio of debt to earnings it does not comply with what they have on the sheet that they can never get to to discuss that modification? they never get to the servicer is? are you aware of the systems? >> i am aware that servicers have instructions from their various investors in terms of the series of questions to ask and assessments to make regarding those loans. not everyone that calls that has a problem with their loan is going to be eligible for a particular modification program. there are many variables at p

it mitigates some of the development impacts and we think that's another good thing. it provides for consistency of development patterns and encourages transit and development. this is a site that sits on the castro and muni station, for god's sake. we understand the rationale for staff wanting to grandfather 376 castro. we're respectfully asking the commission to reconsider that. the site would enjoy some of the benefits of the rezoning and it would be exempt from some of the fees. that's kind of getting the best of both words. that site is an iconic site. castro and market is a world renowned site for the community it. should have the commission review. i request that you actually put this in your amendment that that site does require a mandatory review. we do want public input to the commission on that site and the process. we want to make sure that it ensures compatibility to the upper arket community design plan. we really feel that this amendment is great for the neighborhood and we also want to thank staff very much for the support that they have given us. pres