but i think her concern was, an eir, -- you can only appeal to the board after there is an action taken on the project. they can be appealed before there is any action. her concern is that she feels in a case of major projects, because there is a desire of the planning commission and of the board, if there is going to be a c.u. that the entirety of the action be heard on appeal. in order to have all of the items heard, there is an action on the findings, and action on three of nine, i believe what she is suggesting is to change the ability to appeal immediately and substitute that there be requirements for hearings on the substance of entitlements that would need to have been before a project could be appealed. supervisor maxwell: do we have an answer to that? >> because they take a long time to prepare, what we have been doing is trying to have informational briefings before the certification action happens. and i believe what she is suggesting is that regardless of what would be introduced, it would be a

but i think her concern was, an eir, -- you can only appeal to the board after there is an action taken on the project. they can be appealed before there is any action. her concern is that she feels in a case of major projects, because there is a desire of the planning commission and of the board, if there is going to be a c.u. that the entirety of the action be heard on appeal. in order to have all of the items heard, there is an action on the findings, and action on three of nine, i believe what she is suggesting is to change the ability to appeal immediately and substitute that there be requirements for hearings on the substance

if the planning department is now required to prepare and -- not required to prepare an eir, the board shall take action. the environmental review officer show finalize. page 28, line 13. we will be taking at the progress that read the board may approve additional analysis of the determination, provided that the environmental review officer recommends such additional analysis, and provided further that ceqa does not require further public notice, a public hearing, or further review for such additional analysis. those are all ceqa procedural cleanups. supervisor chiu: i have two additional amendments to add to this. i know these were discussed with van holley and kate stacey. right now, the language states that appellants shall sign a letter of appeal or may have an agent authorized in writing file an appeal on their behalf. the suggestion is that we take out the phrase authorized in writing, since that is not a requirement that exists elsewhere in the state for this type of a filing. the second amendment which i have circulated would replace section e1, which is on pages 24 and 25. the

constraint being a trigger for an appeal, it tends to cause actions to happen in short order after an eir is certified because it can be appealed immediately. supervisor maxwell: i understand that is a concern. with this legislation, how are we dealing with that concern? >> it does not deal with that at all. it continues the conditions and allows other documents to be appealed after an entitlement action. it does change with respect to categorical exemptions and interruptions by president c hiu. no right to appeal would be forfeited until the discretionary actions are taken. as the attorney said, some actions have nothing on the planning commission. there are different kinds of permits. we would basically say that the last of what ever permit you need is the trigger for shutting off any rights to appeal. supervisor maxwell: any further questions or comments? public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: in the amendment that i offered, i want to just clarify the first line. it will be no more than 20 days after the final discretionary action. i suggest we substitute the word "after" for "of.

it is just to clarify when a notice of termination for an eir would be filed. it is a whole new subsection. on page 23, line six, there is a deletion of a clause in section 31.16b11. starting on line six. it refers again to when the notice of the exemption may be filed. supervisor mar: i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> it is on page 43, line six. 31.16b11. it is this clause that starts on line 6, provided that a notice of the exemption or determination shall not be filed for effective until all appeals. have expired and any appeals have finally been resolved. those provisions have been moved into the individual sections on eir's and exemptions to clarify the law with respect to each. there is one more change that the committee actually made last week that i overlooked when i was in putting the changes, and it is on page 25, line 13. we changed the word "within" to "no later than." that was an amendment made last week, and adds is neglected to include it. supervisor alioto-pier: it is my understanding we need to move those. it is also my understanding that se

it goes through a process that may be 18 to 24 months or longer in terms of completing an eir for a project. we will also start consultations with our regulators. principally, the agency at the state level overseas the port's actions is the california state commission, and they weigh in to make sure that we are administering the port's property consistent with our legislative grants. we manage that property for the people of california, which is why state agency oversees our activities. towards the end of the process, we will negotiate what is called a leave this position and development agreements, all subject to approval by the port commission, mayor, and the board of supervisors. then, we go to a regulatory partner, the bay conservation and development commission to get a permit for the project. we will close escrow, and the lease will become effective when our development partner satisfies certain conditions in this position and development agreement. the entire process is designed to make sure that our development is designed to deliver in the form of maritime access, public access and

the city's committing to the victory court site by putting up thousands of dollars for an eir. environmental impact report. there's opposition to the site though. one resident we spoke to says he worries what the new stadium would do to the neighborhood. the city proposed a 39,000 seat stadium and it might cost up to $600 million. the owner of the oakland a's prefers building a stadium in san jose. in fact major league baseball has a committee studying that theory. but just this morning san jose mayor is quoted in a paper saying "a ballot issue that would asked voters to approve the new stadium will unlikely go on the ballot in the springtime." that's because the committee he says has not gotten back to the city and given them direction as to where and what they might do to put that stadium in the city of san jose. in addition to that san francisco giants have a major problem with the a's moving to san jose. that's because giants feel they've been told and they have an ironclad agreement with major league baseball that san jose is their territory is does not belong to any other

second, the current structure we have, which sets the time of appeal for an e.r. -- an e i are -- and eir after the product certification. the planning commission schedules to have a 12 or 15 hour hearing with two commissions because they do not want any intervene or appeal. it is an easier soft -- and easily solved problem. time the eir appeal to the planning decision. i have a hard time understanding the changes that were being made today. i am not sure whether the entire cadex process was taken out. i am pleading for you to make specific -- you have cadex notices for this brand new category we have a lot of. you adopt an area plan and there are no more eirs in that area because they are tiered from that document. need something that says that just because you're in the east part of the city you are not second-class citizens and do not have notices like you have in supervisor mar's district. the rest of us do not get any notices anymore. it is an affirmative change. i have sent you the changes i want. i thought we could solve this. but i do not think we can solve it by tomorrow thank yo

eir. it gives all of us an option when the e.i.r. is complete. i realize there is frustration but it's going to take time. we are moving in that direction and i just want to assure you with that we are doing that and i think moving finally in a pretty positive direction. president miguel: thank you, commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: one last comment, my comments were not directed at the speaker directly, but generally at the academy. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: just one brief question regarding the housing issue and i may need clarification going forward. student housing could be defined as dormitories, i think, because they are owned by the school, would be reverbed for those who are stunts. if someone was no longer a student, they would no longer be able to be the roadway sensors dent there. >> it's attached to the unit as opposed to who is in the unit. >> even if it's owned by a school for the purposes of student housing. >> some of their building are just apartment buildings? >> i guess it depends o

staff indicated they will treat it as a landmark for the moment anyway, that is an historic research that would trigger a full eir, which would significantly delay or change the basis upon which you have negotiated this matter. i don't support changing the nature of the boat house operation. i would encourage you to reject this proposed lease and do something different. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is patty. i just have to say a few things. i cannot believe that a family that has run a business for 65 years is being forced out by a corporation. we are in the same situation, not necessarily with the ortega family, but we are fighting for our business to sustain for a future generation. we were fortunate enough to win that big it to sustain that lease another 10 years. -- we were fortunate enough to win that bid to sustain that least another 10 years. i remember playland. i remember still like the way that it was with the boats and the boat house with the hoist. i don't think we need another restaurant. this gentleman said something, that the cost, for $60,000, it would be the cost of a gardener. i think a f

toithe cutsionr bcredit carbon r company that isr poltion aowan company th u eir alwancl thecredit on t carbon t ea ishave an availanies olluting >> what poll are willing se to to emitts on the prograreporter: busines testifiedcerned onirstbon and trad will costmuch mo and reloca california.his i to drastically t ov optimisticon it will all wime. we o operateder that or entemarket, marknot established. >>reporter: a pes to make 100ion dollars b selrbon permit by 2020 it c bill dollasacramento, ab 7 ne >>e ahead tonight. come up. police areasking fors forwarnd killers 17 neol student >> legal challen hoo restaurantse ofwhat childrenxposed to. >> praiseyor aop. on 7 on yo expensative [ female announcer ] saway talks the main course. mmm. you smell that? yeah, wait. what is that? love. smells like m. [ male announcer ] serve a main course imming with comfort and joy. safeway. ingredientfor life. s@ at are stunning toook at exhilarang to drive and worry free to own. celebrate this holiday season with theift of platinum. jaguar platinum coverage: five years or 50,000 miles of complimentary scheduled maintenance,

eir. the project produces 330 acres of open space, which for an area as large as this project is, is rather reasonable and reduces the area to 205 acres, in addition to its 7 million square feet of office, retail, industrial, and institutional users. the reason why i'm quoting the numbers is only for us to keep it at least in the corner of our eye as we move forward, looking at all project, which border both sides of the freeway and which we are looking at for transportation and other impacts. so if anybody wants to read this brief outline, i would be happy to pass it on, but i think is important to be aware of. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner borden: there was an item on december 5 "conical" newspaper in the real estate column, and it makes reference to a project to a building -- the december 5 "chronicle" newspaper. i contacted the zoning administrator because i was concerned. we often have people come before the commission saying that it was a shock to us that it was a single family home. our zoning administrator contacted the realtor, who said that the newspaper misrepresen

we have completed an initial review of those reports, but first, a bit of history. a draft eir published in 2007 showed the subway share saving money. that astounding benefit was repeatedly broadcast by others -- published a year later. the figure was now down to 3.1 8 million a year say but it was still savings, so again, that savings was trumpeted in many public meetings. two months ago, the mta submitted this new structure board, so now we see the subway would increase we have gone from saving 27.82 + $7 million. should be aware of that when you are listening to stop you're being told. as recent as the last week, people were being told of cost savings. is this one example of the many accuracies and distortions that have misled people, including you, that bill -- that chinatown would benefit from this ill- conceived project. thank you -- commissioner campos: thank you. >> linda chapman. i have lived in not hill for over 40 years. most of us are completely dependent on transit. over two-thirds of the household when we did the census had no vehicle at all. i am very sympathetic