a lot of the mitigation is contained in other documents. difficulty is after months of wondering and questioning and ising we do not understand what the approval process is for those plans. who says the plan is done? it seems clear that there is a mitigation for this document is going to be contained in the other plans that you are the one to have final approval on them. i think that you should clarify that and assure that takes place. thank you very much. >> thank you. public comment is closed. commissioner miguel. >> yes. particularly concerning the federal land i just want to make sure that everyone understands that in addition to this process there is a nepa process. there are three public venues for your comments into that. the first one is next wednesday the 17th, 6:30 at the bay model visitors center. on thursday the 18th from 7:00 to 9:00 at the golden gate club and the third one tuesday the 23rd, 6:30 to 8:30 at the waterfront hotel. so you have san francisco north bay and east bay involved there. these are being convened by the gg

i just hope we can come to some mitigation. if you want to feel -- if you feel you want to give them an opportunity, i am ok with that. >> what changed you think regarding the permit holders just now? >> i will set aside my motion for the time being during the -- for the time being. >> is that a swinging door? >> otherwise, we are continuing for a few months. >> i totally respect that, but the brief said commissioner peterson: what did you basically offer? >> to surrender the condition of having three panels opened. it was either one open or three open, and that one acts as a doorway in and out of whatever that space with deep, almost like a fourth door, so it would be just wonder -- one can open, four panels close. commissioner peterson: ok i could withdraw mine. >> is that a switch in door? commissioner garcia: of course, you have a right to ask questions because we are considering something that affects you. >> even the swinging door is going to allow, and i think that is what you're proposing, completing one door open and.

means for mitigating what we know will be direct impacts. we already lost 40% of the open water bay habitat since we have been developing it. these birds deserve better from us. we are not against the project. we want to help plan it. but we encourage the city to take our comments seriously in order to avoid delay. >> thank you commissioners. i am the deputy director of the golden gate national park conserve eans. this is our strong conviction that the america's cup organizers must assure that the public use and benefits of this national park are treated with great care and stewardship. we urge the organizers to take responsibility for the added cost of hosting this event in the national park and for the expected wear and tear on park facilities and resores. it is among the most beloved open spaces in san francisco serving a diverse audience and contributing to our quality of life. 2011 marks the anniversary of the restoration and of the opening of the award winning urban environmental center on the site. led by the parks conserveancy, the r

no mitigation seven proposed, allied or adopted. bcdc and other agencies still need to take action on approval of this project. there many health risks that will occur due to the loss of the air quality benefits. i would urge the supervisors to take the following actions. one, consider delaying this item until the port and the city of san francisco provide a written commitments to mitigating the loss of these air emissions. b, direct the port as a condition of his appropriation to provide an updated progress report on the mitigation to stakeholders specifically. and/or, 3, hold a public briefing, a public hearing, in this committee or the fault supervisors, within two weeks so that the port may provide a look at what it is looking at. the port says they are looking at the issues and are concerned and working on it. but unfortunately, stakeholders have not been engaged, and we're not clear where, when, and why. we think this is a very important issue and really appreciate your consideration. i wish we could have done more for at work

we want to ensure that all impact are mitigated to the extent feasible. good city planning demands this. we will be submitting written comments, but i want to highlight some of our concerns now. the draft is inefficient in a couple of areas. like traffic during the two- year period, the height and design of the expansion. first, traffic. a substantial amount of loading occurs in the museum and the existing fire station. there is no discussion, but what happens when that area is closed off? and all of that traffic is forced through third street? as you know, these are vital corridors for traffic moving across the city. they are already very congested, particularly during the commute hours. it will literally stop traffic at key intersections of the city. this should be fully exposed -- disclosed. it dismisses impact of tel in non-public areas. 40,000 or 50,000 visitors will use the hotel rooms that directly face the project. at least 112 of the rooms will be blocked. we hear the fire department will create renderings. we were expecting for results, -- poor

measures we can live with, but instead what we heard is basically, we are not offering any mitigation measures. we are a successful business. we are busy, noisy, and isn't that great? i am troubled by that. the neighbors do have a right to enjoy their homes. we saw the pictures of the babies. the babies have a right to do that. i would like to see something happen. close the deck, enclose it with class. -- glass. my response is not to uphold the permit as it stands. >> i would echo the disappointment of wanting to see the parties come together. it gave you some time, and i do think the way this process has gone for the neighbors is not a good one, and i found a pretty persuasive the report of the appellant in pointing it out and referencing this noise ordinance. i am not an expert, but it would appear the given the response of the permit holders to the same question, i would put on a point in favor of the appellants, but i think the bigger picture is not about an -- is about not coming to this together in recognizing you have got serious problems, and it is not going to end here, and

they don't provide any other means for mitigating what we know will be direct impacts.

those mitigations have been spoken about today but very briefly. we need the building as fully accessible, beyond a.d.a. standards. we increased the staffing to 24-hour staffing at the site which is not originally in our program plan. we built a basement over 3,000 square feet of community space and those were all thing that's in our original plan prior to going to the planning commission , those were mitigations we brought to the planning commission and addressing neighborhood concerns. since then there are two other things we agreed to in concept with the neighbors. i want to say these agreements are based on the neighbors withdrawing their appeals. we want to work with the neighbors so they're supportive of the project and working in partnership. we are going to lower the amount of monthly overnight guests the youth can have in our standard properties, it's 14 per month. we will lower it to 10. we would have done this, when we do project advisory committees on many, many of our projects and usually once construction is over, they dissolve and we

while it fails to estimate out all of these, it does not provide for adequate mitigation. i will tell you when i read it and many members read it and provided me with comments to provide you, it struck them that there is a sense they were trying to do it on the cheap. why would these people worth hundreds of millions try to cut corners on mitigation for impact to the environment. it seems unnecessary. on land they seem to rely primarily on signage and educational efforts. they will have to do more to protect the dunes and the wildlifes. the water relies entirely on a brochure. they donro

the mitigation is the caps were you retrofit a water heater and mitigate those hazards. our end as the recovery and. we wind up as recovery even though we are seen as more of a response. this is not only getting dollar amounts for how much there is. how can we get everybody back in their building? that is the recovery that could be long term or could be years. building occupancy you program -- was at a meeting yesterday and this city is pushing more than ever with real estate to get off city buildings. they already have a pre designed team. your pre deputized and you don't have to wait for us to come. this is critical to recovery. part of the department of emergency management is supposed to be tying all of this together. that is their key role, so don't waste resources and there's not an overlap and three departments are not asking for the same thing. they are trying to coordinate with us. >> is there also an approach to shelter in place? there are times when there is not going to be enough time for people to stay and move elsewhere. >> when we talk about shelter in pla

the appropriate mitigation jedd be reviewed in the eir document. we can also continue the elevator and escalator, $800,000, and other construction costs, $5.67 million. we would need to pursue a structural steel and other preparation of other packages. let me just explain why we need to pursue structural steel now. the total cost of that is $6 million. if the america's cup project is approved, we have an extremely compressed schedule to deliver the project in time for the event. in order to meet the timing in the agreement, we need to begin the process for purchase of the steel, fabrication, and installation of the early work related to the still packages and other packages is about $3 million. this would take place prior to the ceqa decision, which we would anticipate in february. the port commission discussed this yesterday, the city may disapprove the america's cup event or the cruise terminal above project. we had to place the order now prior to project approval, and we know that presents some risks, that did the best course of action for three

there are some ways to mitigate that. if you try to get people that are -- and you could lower the amount. we're not talking of businesses in this program, we're only talking about residential customers. there is a lot of mitigation. there are a lot of ideas. we need this first that to continue to move forward. we'll get a contract and that helps us get farther down the process of addressing these other questions. nancy miller has requested that you move this to the full board so they can have a chance to start the process. thank you. >> further comments? so, we will continue this item. hopefully, we will be able to have a meeting in august to move on it and if not, we will taken up with a meeting in september. the next item. >> madame president, item 12, discussion and possible action to move two community choice aggregation amendments to agreement number -- for the committee choice aggregation programs. monitoring the advisory services on behalf of the public utilities commission for the community choice aggregation pro

just as it relates to resolving and mitigating these challenges. can speak to a couple different references. one come a discussion earlier in testimony around court nation of importation of product to alleviate critical troop shortages. there was a specific instance in which we worked with the fda to bring a new product called leucovorin that's used in combination with chemotherapy to enhance the effect is said that treatment does so as to mitigate side effects. we brought it in and had a significant resources to work collaboratively with that and were able to help mitigate that problem. the solution that we are looking at recognizing as the multi-stakeholder issue. i do need to comment as it exists today, there is tremendous cooperation within the truck shortage crippen manufacturing community. as referenced earlier, there is no formal process. it's an informal process and i can speak on behalf of teva and other manufacturers in the state that we too will collaborate with the fds testified earlier in the take that very seriously. we are responding

. >> it is important to realize that some things can be mitigated. that is what we are doing with the program. >> 85% -- what does that mean? >> the firmed and shaped are resources were you take a intermittent resource, these are regulatorily definied. the wind power works when it is windy and the sun power works when the sun is out. when you are trying to get a block to try and cover when people are using their appliances and such -- >> how do we anticipate forecasting? >> we have historic data and we are forecasting the load. since we have so many -- is accurate. >> 30%, 40%, 50%? >> it will be in the 90's. >> commissioner torres: in the 90's? i did not think we have the technology for that. >> forecasting how much energy is needed at certain times of day? >> commissioner torres: yes. >> we have been given information and it varies through the year. >> >> commissioner torres: i do not think pg&e has the capacity to forecast accurately. local jobs, we have talked about that before. what local jobs will be coming to san francisco? is shell hiring loc

if it did not, we would still be liable in terms of mitigating the cost or upon the alliance of their contract with us. >> if the price went up, the expectation is that they could sell it to some other third party and we would not of them anything. >> these trade balance for less than, that is what we are dealing with. >> correct. the liability is capped at $15 million in the instance where the program is not able to have sufficient revenues coming in to the door. because the counterparty was concerned about political risk, they were operating just fine inconsistent. they just want to terminate the program. in the as instances, we were agreeing that the termination payment would not be capped. >> i have a question. i simply don't understand something. what advantage is it to us to have show purchase this energy they won for 4.5 years out? >> the primary one is that we don't have credit. to enter into the market wholesale energy marketplace, you have to give the counterparties some confidence that you will be able to purchase its for the price specified, and we're talking about million

request adoption of the california environmental quality act findings and mitigation, monterey, an error reporting program for and approval of brandon street wharf public open space project. >> good morning, commissioners. hobbesian this morning, we are here to request the adoption of the california environmental quality act findings and mitigation, my turn, and reporting program for an approval of the brenda street wharf public space open project. i will provide a better product history, describe the features of the project, introduced the project team, and then die and will speak about the environmental documents. the ministry fourth to be located on the embarcadero, not between piers 30/32 and 38 will be a new $7 a square foot public space parallel to the embarcadero promenade. the work will define the center of the south beach neighborhood. for a better product history, in the year of 2000, the san francisco bay conservation and development commission all working with the port amended their special area plans for the san francisco waterfront. changes made to this plan and in the port

these were all things we offered on the table to mitigate their concerns and have them support this project in hopes they would withdraw their appeal. >> what are the visiting hours? >> sure, visiting hours -- actually house rules are behind me but i believe they're 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and then after that, your guest is considered someone who's staying with you overnight. >> it's like worth noting visitor policy is the idea to support you have good, strong peer relationships as anyone in supportive housing but particularly it's important for young people, also young people are going to be expected to be out during the day at school and at work and taking care of their lives. so we're trying to strike the balance between having the right amount of access for visitors and overnight guests and the same kinds of experiences anybody can have in their apartment and at the same time the youth center and program are there because they're headed towards a goal, right? they're trying to get their lives together and work on stuff. i think it's also worth noting that larkin street and c.h.p., we ha