, the ceqa guidelines, and chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code. in closing, i would like to add that the gene this point in the environmental review process is a great milestone. i want to thank our consultant team and other members of environmental planning staff, our environmental review officer, as well as other planning staff who contributed substantially to this eir. our partner agencies at tjpa and the former redevelopment agency. this concludes my presentation on the matter, and unless commissioners have questions, and suggest you consider certification. commissioner fong: thank you. commissioner antonini: thank you for your presentation. there were a couple of questions asked about revisions to the draft. it talks about some changes -- for example, the ratio of commercial to residential hotel changes from 3 to 1 to two to one, which would be less of an impact for the same and that, and they talk about the shorter building than was originally proposed and loading dock changes and a variety of other things. it would seem like that answers th

it is an approval issue. -- ceqa impact issue. questions raised about cumulative traffic and parking impacts. the eir -- and very specifically talks about and analyzes the impacts from other projects. such as the cruise terminal as well as incorporating a general background. all the impact analysis in regards to transportation parking impacts to take into account that cumulative analysis. the appellant and others have raised the issue of 75 howard. does produce came to place subsequent to -- those projects came to place subsequent to the eir being published. it is not a new project. it is relocating across the street and down the block. traffic is already incorporated into the analysis. that project was a cart -- was a part of our current setting. 75 howard is further removed part of the background growth, which is included in the project impact analysis. on parking impacts, both of those projects are outside the study area. what happens to the parking there does not change the information or the analysis presented in the eir. it

again, it is not a ceqa issue. it is a practical issue that needs to be worked out. i will not go into detail on the cumulative impacts. so that the cumulative effects will be addressed. they did look at a broad range of alternatives. a total of five alternatives were looked at, and as was indicated, the aim was to look at different potential configurations on the site in the event that the city ultimately did not approve a re- zone or that the situations with the seawall more different. the significant and unavoidable effects are intrinsic to any development on this side. they relate to the potential for flooding in the event of sea level rise, and they relate to a cumulative traffic impact at the intersection of the embarcadero and washington street. not by virtue of this project but by virtue of some recommendations that were made in the northeastern embarcaderos steady to narrow washington street and eliminates some lanes. do we know that is going to happen? no, we do not, but if it does happen, there will be significant impacts associated with that in the future

according to ceqa, we do not have to do that. there are four alternatives taken up in the eir, which is in regards to this project itself. but you do not have to analyze an entirely different project to conform with ceqa. so while that is an interesting concept, although i think the light will have more impact on a greater number of people in the middle of an area where it is completely housing than they will in an area where it is not too many residents of other than at the animals that live around there or the insects or others. there was also a comment about heat with astroturf. artificial turf has come a long way since the astroturf days. i don't think the heat at beach chalet will be a problem too often. although there are areas where it is warmer, that is one of the sites. i can testify, i think the kids are right about playing on the artificial turf on some of the older fields of san francisco. i played softball on many fields before the was artificial turf, and we had a lot of problems with the fields in those days. it wa

ceqa guidelines have a strict standard for when that needs to occur. when there is a serious increase in environmental impact that has already been reported, or is the draft eir was so insignificant. we do not believe that was reached. the public clearly has an opportunity to talk about the loss of tennis courts, and we believe that is conveyed through the draft. >> can we talk about alternatives you did or did not lay out some of this was not a project that -- or did not lay out? this was a project and still retain half of the tennis courts, and what we have is a very different projects with major height and reclassifications, and one thing that is clear to me that there did not seem to been a component address whether this would actually meet the goals of the city. >> there are two alternatives. alternatives b and e, which develops only the washington site, so those are in the eir. it is an esoteric issue, but they are supposed to derive alternatives to the address and respond to significant impacts of the project. we did not identify specific impact

for the record, i will state that adoption of the ceqa findings is 4a 4b is proposed plan amendments. 4d is request for review and comment. 4e is a learning t is administre amendments. 4g is the program implementation document. >> good morning again the, commissioners. since the department has been the primary sponsor of this plan, i thought it was appropriate to address you from this location rather than my usual chair. three weeks ago, we talked about a number of items. i will not reiterate all of those. i just want to reiterate what we are putting this before you today for adoption and white -- and also a bit more about the shadow issue. we initiated the plan in response to the transbay working group. the idea of the plan was to reflect the goal of the original 1985 plan to create a high density neighborhood as well as providing an creating land value that would be captured and distributed toward the actual construction of the terminal and tunnel. there have been a number of actions since then. we initially proposed and put out the plan for public distribution in november 2009. sin

the motion is for item 2a, the adoption of ceqa findings. on the motion to adopt ceqa findings. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes. commissioner antonini: now we move to 2b, st. louis general plan amendment. -- st. luke's general plan amendment. >> did someone have their microphone -- on the motion to approve -- recommend approval to the board of supervisors the general plan amendment to the st. luke's campus. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. on the 2c, the request for general plan amendments for the general hospital. to recommend approval to the board of supervisors for the general plan amendments commissioner antonini: antoniniaye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes 4-2. item 2d. commi

ceqa. it also has -- we have heard the great benefits that this project -- the public benefits, the revenue to the city, the beautification of the waterfront, the open space. what is not to like? like i said, the hour is late. i urge you to reject these appeals and move forward with this eir. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening. i am roger, a resident of sentences go for over 35 years. -- of san francisco for over 35 years. i support public schools and a true public open spaces. i am principle of the architectural firm walker -- working on the architectural development with projects such as pier 24. this proposal is truly a once in a blue moon opportunity, one that is intelligent, well thought out, a financially balanced. it is a proposal that is truly greater than the sum of its parts. you are taking two parts, a triangular surface parking lot that otherwise is not able to be developed, and you are combining it with a private club that is cutting off the connections to

in terms of ceqa, it is clearly significant. the project has proposed it would have the ability to change the shuttle in the future. planning officials are wrong in their decision-making power superior of that of the electorate. the entire proposition was to conclude any such negotiations, and all side of the election debate agreed on that point. then the city attorney issued a clarification for what could it cannot be done, which you now have before you. prior to this, the city could use the did require trade-offs from any develop from a public park. the result was a slow destruction of the city parks. in essence, the continual modification and privatization of public sunlight was the public right. for all of these reasons, skipping to the chase, the proposed project that will share part should be excluded from the scope of the eir. planning is aware of this. they have set up a committee that has worked over a year on it. yours is the ministerial act to follow. thank you, commissioners. president fong: dan kingsley. >> dan kins

members of the public asked about the ceqa items, the findings of ceqa in the legislation. from my understanding of it, it is really just speaking to the fact that there is an increase in fees and would not require a ceqa analysis. correct? >> we did get back from planning a determination that the legislation is statutory exempt from ceqa because it is a fee. supervisor chu: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? eric brooks. >> good morning, supervisors. eric brooks, speaking on behalf of the san francisco green party. i want to thank supervisor kim for introducing the amendment. the context here, from the point of view of advocates for the public and park spaces being opened to the public without fees at all is that the original legislation years ago that put the consumer price index increases on park fees in the first place is not good because we should be heading in the other direction, towards not raising fees and not having any fees at all. then for rec and park to basically have this style language in a measure that is about raising

cna is actively engaged in ceqa review for this project. we submitted comments on the draft eir, with four experts attaching reports. we outlined a series of legal and technical defects in the draft eir's analysis. we submitted to the comments yesterday on the final eir. the document still fails to remedy many of our concerns that we raised in the draft. the final eir continues to omit and understate project impacts to traffic and air quality. it fails to adopt mitigation for these impacts and other impacts such as greenhouse gases. and if mitigation is identified, it is often vague and unenforceable. just taking traffic as one example, the eir uses an incorrect base line for muni ridership, using 2006 data rather than more recent data which shows increased ridership. this creates a misleading and mistaken impression that there is more capacity than there is. therefore, understating the project's transit impacts. our traffic expert also found that there were some really unsubstantiated and improper tweaking to the traffic modeling, such tha

, the ceqa guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation on this matter, and if any commissioners have any questions, i will turn the stage over to the next item. thank you. commissioner: thank you. >> thank you, good morning, president fong, members of the commission. items 2a through 2n gather constitute the required approvals for the long-range develop a plan projects. they will provide updates on the development agreement, this is an overview of the actions being requested it. for the contiguous public spaces. and most of these items are technical cleanup type of corrections, and staff is proposing one revision to the conditions of approval in response to commissioner borden's comments about creating advisory groups for the near term projects. these were previously proposed at campuses with a long-range project. there are several extra hard copies available for the public, and we will turn this over. >> good morning, commissioners. i am ken, oewe. what we plan to do is amplify on the topics. the hearing el

it is not a ceqa issue. this project goes include some significant resources open to everybody, not merely members of a private health club. i would like to talk about height limits. there was some discussion of that earlier this evening. the existing height limit is 84 feet. one of the entitlements requested is an increase for the maximum height for a portion of the site, and it would allow 136 points. the eir analyzes the impact and concludes it is not significant. the focus is appropriately on the existing environmental sexting, what surrounds the site of 550 feet, the complex next door about 22 stories tonya. but as the existing sexting. -- that is the existing setting. on the screen is a depiction showing the project but was proposed that was found to have a significant negative impact on views. there were four towers proposed, and they range from 250 feet to to harvard 20 feet tall, much taller than proposed for this project and this site where my hand is appointed, -- is pointing, said the conclusions

some have used the topsy turvy lot of ceqa logic that this is such a core environmental choice that the land should instead be preserved as a surface parking lot. our friends believe that any change to the adjacent swimming and tennis club is unacceptable, so serving as a parking lot is environmentally superior option. the good folks who own a nifty parking business on this land believe that the project threatens parking and the use of cars. in fact, their appeal mentions their threat, which tells us all about their environmental priorities that we need to know, and boston properties, believing that the eight washington project threatens views of their offices have therefore decided that a waterfront parking lot is wiser land use. the two questions you have to decide is who gets to enjoy this highly visible public land and which use is the better outcome for the environment. we implore you to choose the environmental option that benefits the entire city and not just the privileged few, and i cannot emphasize strongly enough that a project that provides $11 million in funding for housing

the ceqa findings, the environmental review highlights that conflict here finally, within the western the western shore line offers conflicting policy direction as well for facilities such as the soccer fields. it states that we should improve the western end of the park for public recreation. it is currently considered to be underutilized and is deserving of improvement. it similarly emphasizes the naturalistic landscapes qualities at the same time encouraging increase visitor use of the western end of the park. locations include the proposed revisions would " improve the public recreation and increase visitor use. however, it would do so at some level of impact of the naturalistic landscapes qualities of the park. the department finds on balance the proposed renovation of the beach chalet soccer fields to be in conformity with the general plan. some of the highlights include, in addition to the ones i have already mentioned, that the evolving recreational needs of san franciscans require facilities to perform more efficiently than they currently do. we found that the 1000-plus acres

it has nothing to do with ceqa. it has something to do with you. you commissioners can do the right thing. only if you speak to the truth. but if you are manipulated by the machine, politics, corrupt developers, then it is on you. the 2008 economic downfall that is affecting us and will be affecting us for a long time is because of greed. this exists in this city and county of san francisco. mello roarouse, ifd's. redevelopment is gone, thank god. the successor to the san francisco redevelopment agency cannot produce one that document that the california department of finance agrees. back to you. thank you. >> thank you. sheet metal workers union 104. >> good afternoon, president fong, commissioners, madam clerk. speaking on behalf of our union into an francisco council. just here to say that we support the transit center area plan for several reasons. the wonderful benefits that it will provide and the amount of open space that i saw there is breathtaking and brilliant. the white side walks, and this plan is vital to keep the transit project that

the only considered ceqa first and then entitlements. the height reclassification will return to the board in june, as will the development agreement and on tuesday, after most of the discussion, the first discussion by president chiu was to table the eir. the eir was then certified 8-3. next there was a motion by seau to eight -- to consider a continuation hearing. the last was an authorization of the cu vote and i did pass. -- it did pass. then there was administrative code to add limitations on eligibility, application deadlines, to add a timeline for the receipt of the report and to make various changes. this will be scheduled for you in the near term. and there were a couple of ordnances that were introduced and that we have been working with the mayor and staff on. the first is the transportation sustainability fee. i believe the director has provided you with a great deal and the second was the impact fee and the development out date. -- updates. that concludes my board report unless there are other questions. thank you. president

both of which were identified as historic resources under the environmental quality act of ceqa. it would result in a significant unavoidable architect for resource impact on the national register of historic places, the california resource of historic eligible. the construction of the replacement hospital under the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant adverse historical resource impacts on the same chinatown historic district. fourth, we have an air quality significant impact, which is construction of the proposed project would raise substantial levels of a toxic health contaminant that would substantially affect receptors. this would be a significant and unavoidable health impact. the historic preservation commission held a hearing on may 2. comments related mainly to historic resources, specifically the proposed project significant impact on the individual historic resource that is the 1924 mab. on the national register of historic places, the chinatown historic district, and the cumulative impact on chinese historic resource

clearly, according to the documentation in the response document, follows the standard requirements, ceqa requirements. it has gone through the appendix g checklist. it has used san francisco standard practice. based on that, it looks at the individual modes of transportation. pedestrian, bicycle, vehicles, transit. however, that does not necessarily answer the questions that affect the quality of life of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. and these are issues that we have raised repeatedly cpmc, both repeatedly -- repeatedly, both with cpmc and with planning staff, in prior communications. so, the first key comment is that the peak period level of service analysis that is used is inadequate to assess the impact of a high use facility in residential neighborhoods. what we see are transient traffic phenomenons that cause pedestrian hazards, bicycle hazards, and vehicular hazards. because of driver behaviors. we see congestion at that changes the way people in the community walk, drive, and live their lives during the business hours. this is not something that looking at a peak hou