right off of that, the eir fails to meet the standards. first, there's the demolition of the rent-controlled products. this is not an impact to be studied. this is not -- this is an attempt to downplay an obvious take the issue. there is the state law housing definition. this is like saying i do not have a flat tire because i have a spare in the truck. some of these people will get replacement homes. some of them may not, but they are all being displaced. the eir fails to recognize the very human impact by simply denying this is occurring. the eir claims there is no displacement also because the replacement housing will have a rent control on it. likewise, the assessment that the demolition is not an impact also rests on the fact that the new housing will have a rent control on it. there are two key underpinnings that rely on this, but there is a serious question. response from planning has been completely irresponsive, and all that they do in the eir is repeat that it is going to be this way because it says so. meanwhile, the whole time t

it is not even analyzed in the eir. the development agreement should have been finished with public input before you even finalized an eir. it is a fundamental problem. there are many others. i urge you to look at them. thank you very much. >> i am with san francisco tenants united. we also agree this should be sent back to planning for a thorough analysis of a non- demolition alternative, not a one-paragraph mentioned. it is not necessary to demolish. you can use some of the 6000 parking spaces that are going to put out there to build some housing, for example. rent-control housing stock in san francisco is too much at risk to risk losing another 1500 units. we have a condo conversions. we have mergers. we have demolitions. we have tourist conversions. we cannot build anything new. we have to preserve for we have. it is way too risky to think that under costa-hawkins we can have some sort of protection for these units. you have heard from these people who are going to lose their homes. do not put this -- do not put the

"the eir is incomplete. it fails to say why demolition is even necessary korea this will become a heavy traffic generator. the eir fails to identify impacts. future residents will remain car dependent. [bell] damn. president chiu: thank you. >> a less parking alternative. more and more projects in san francisco are analyzing the parking alternative. you guys approved one last year, on market street, and the fact that it gave you some leverage, some leverage to deal with it. treasure island, 8000 new units with considerably less parking. it gives you ammunition. this only shows all of the impacts of the extra cars that they allowed to park there, and then people drive them. it does not show if they have less parking near what the alternatives might be. the impacts on the 28 orsillo, someone made a special study to show what would happen if we had a hotly on 19th avenue, asking people to pay to drive on 19th avenue, all of this is better of one by having a full eir discussion with less parking. i like a lot of

i am paraphrasing the eir. there was a statement that said there were mitigating factors that could not be overcome and that hazardous materials would be released into the air. if that is true, i would like to speak about hazardous materials as it pertains to the expectant mother and the unborn child. unbeknownst to me, when i was in my 20s and had recently got married, but i miss carried by very first child. that was a very devastating experience for my ex-husband and i. unbeknownst to us, i was exposed to hazardous materials and did not know about it. that was over 20 years ago. for many people in the work force, there are laws to protect them. it was a truly painful -- supervisor mar: can you very much. thank you very much. excuse him. thank you very much. [applause] next speaker. if there are any members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellants, lined up at this time. i do not have any more cards. feel free to line up behind the current speakers. next speaker, please. could we have the m

there is no alternative like that in the eir. in regard to the parking that was brought up, you can get the federal government to throw a bunch of money at you and go for transit density, but the reality is, if you take that money and build one to one parking, what anybody in the environmental movement will tell you, if you widen the freeway or put in a parking spot, it will get filled up. you can build of the greatest transit center in the universe. it is a ridiculous use of the space and it is bad for greenhouse gas emissions. this needs to be sent back to the factory, and it needs a scaled-down alternative that uses a lot less parking. >> the promise that there will be rent control is inextricably linked to the eir. the demolition of garden apartments is not an impact. that is why a they can find that there is no displacement in this project. it is not opening an environmental review sometime down the road where they find this is no good. >> i will give a very short brief. can you consider the rent- controlled development agre

i urge you to decline the appeal of this eir. thank you very much. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening. i am ramsey. as stated earlier, there have been numerous informational hearings with agencies regarding the project. there will be significant impacts on this project. the time for talking in learning is over. it is now time to approve this important project. any residents will be moved to a brand new unit of a similar size, and with all the protections afforded the tenants under the rent control law. these were constructed over 60 years ago with low-quality construction materials. these replacement units will remain for the life of the property, not just for that of the tenant. merced will comply with additional regulations and provide new units. tax revenues and fees to the city. the proposed project will be rehabilitating an existing site. this will provide more residential units. parkmerced is providing the example of creating living spaces and jobs in one community. i urge you to deny the appeal on the eir. [bell] president chiu: nex

an alternative which would not meet this would not be in the eir. this would not comply with housing element law. a. no futures on an alternative was also addressed in the comments and responses. regarding the is on the baseline for transportation analysis, this considered to the existing condition and analyze future conditions under the cumulative conditions. it also analyzed 60 intersections throughout the city and found that the traffic impact as a result of the housing element policies would be less than significant. regarding the changes, pages 266-267 discussed in detail the changes made to the housing element policies in the latest draft and concluded that those were not result in additional environmental impact beyond what was analyzed in the eir. having addressed these other matters, i would like to conclude my presentation regarding certification. the valuation of issues contained found that implementation of the 2004 or 2009 housing element would result in significant and avoidable impact to the transit network that cannot be mitigated to

i reviewed the eir. it will create jobs in san francisco and revenue, things we desperately need. >> i am with a sheet metal workers. there was an article last week in "the examiner," and it mentioned about san francisco becoming a child free zone. as the man with the building trades also said, helping to reach our local hiring goals. i ask you to uphold the certification. thanks very much. >> hi, my name is gordon. there are three main points that i want to make. in building out the new units for a total of 89, this project will create 35,000 jobs, new on- site jobs. there is a 25% and climate rate. this would provide thousands of jobs, in he knows? other associated taxes and fees, obviously increasing our prosperity in san francisco. thank you very much. >> good evening. i am also a resident. i very much agree that the eir it is complete. there is no time machine. most of the arguments are highly speculative. i travel through the corridor a lot. i am one of many who cares about what happens at parkmerc

the draft eir has been issued. the comment period has been closed. there is the last week, we issued the document, basically listing our responses to the comments. we have 28 days from that date to april 7 that the public can review that document and speak publicly at the hearing. at 28 days four weeks is significantly longer than what we have to do by statute, which is 10 days, so it is about three times that amount. looking at other projects like the shipyard, bare window for reviewing those comments and responses was 21 days. while we were a project of significant size, we think we have significantly less problems than the shipyard, and providing more time for people to look at that document and respond. i have here joining us to help with the presentation, michael from our office as well as peter from the mta to talk about the dissertation plan, and then i will talk about our housing plan. >> good afternoon, supervisors. office of work force development. i'm going to be walking through the land use plan as it exists today. looking at a few key ch

seeker requires the eir to propose the mitigation. that is not here and this is not in the eir. the 2004 policies that encourages a mode shift towards a transit might result in a potentially significant transit impact. this means that you have to mitigate it. >> thank you. >> i represent san franciscans for aid livable neighborhood. i am submitting this for the commission to be placed in the record. ihave copies for the commissioners. substantial changes were made after the review. closed. this includes area along bus lines through the city neighborhoods and new policies whereas before policy 12.1 had to find major transit lines. the plan areas have capacity for your housing needs. also, the text was changed to eliminate the statement in some areas and density limits should be maintained for the character. this was the height and bulk limit. consistency of individual projects would be based on the changed language and the change provides for the districts. it also eliminated it to the planning code to further accommodate housing near transit. in addition, this is legally an adeq

city requirements for construction mitigation as well as additional construction mitigation for the eir in terms of noise, tines of work -- times of war, making sure there is no effect on the building due to our construction work next door -- times of work. our contractor came to the meeting last month and explain how they would insure their safety during construction will continue at communication during construction with the site superintendent, with his or her contact information being available to residents so they can be constantly in communication with them. commissioner olague: i believe it is the tenderloin housing clinic. >> right. we have been in communication with staff and property management also. commissioner olague: great. thank you. i support commissioner sugaya's commons, but what is important for me, and i think this could all be done within a reasonable time, to have a conversation with both commissioners and maybe any commissioners here who want to be part of the conversations as it relates to the design, but for me, what is more important is that it's stay on schedu

next week, the planning department will be making a presentation demonstrating the adequacy of the eir, to address all of those issues. there are reported medications in place to address all of those issues. -- appropriate mitigation in place to address all those issues. however, puc recognizes there are some coordination actions. we have developed a settlement agreement to address those concerns. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, towards the bottom of page 6 of the report, we note the $6 million in construction related costs detailed in table 3 -- again on page 6 of the report -- subject to approval of the proposed settlement agreement, the puc anticipates expanding a total of $2.5 million on that settlement agreement. that is between the puc and east bay regional park district. on page 9 of our report, we note the board of supervisors could continue the requested release of reserved funds until after the puc received construction bids for the calaveras dam replacement project, which are currently due on april 1

stop this eir. thank you. >> my name is sarah manofee. i was not going to speak, but i got emotional listening and i wanted to put in my 2 cents. just as somebody who cares about the city that i love and who has lived through a lot of displacement of friends and seen what happened in the fillmore -- this seems like the same to me. it is whole communities destroyed and displaced. i really think that ordinary people without a whole bunch of money deserve to have roses and open space and decent housing that is affordable. they should not be run out of the city because the politicians are bending over for the developers. our last mayor was in their pocket. i really hope that is going to change now. please do not let this scammed go through. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> if i cut off, i am going to go over. i wish supervisor mirkarimi was here. i fought alongside him with the green party to keep progressives in this town and to keep our voice heard. i am a 20-year resident of parkmerced. many people have talked about t

that is the only alternative that does not involve demolition that is covered in this eir. there are two paragraphs about an alternative that was rejected for analysis because it did not meet the sponsors goals. it would have built in fill units in courtyards and car parts. that was not analyzed. so there is no truth no- demolition alternative to consider as a serious alternative. you could send it back for that reason. i want to quickly turn to transit and traffic. even assuming the m line will go into parkmerced, which is not guaranteed by any means, the eir reveals it would be overcrowded and will need additional street cars purchased. those are unfunded by the m.t.a. or the developer. there would be increased headways that would reduce transit capacity. supervisor mar: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i seem to have started something. can i get it back up? there it is. this is a quick slide show of the images and issues about parkmerced. i have spent over five years discussing this issue with the city and county. i think it is important i have only seen one supervi

you will hear from preservation people tonight, including in the eir comments, and it was stated that there is a complete lack of integrity and that the building was in serious disrepair when the zillmans purchased it, not a case of deferred maintenance. "a reasonable manner." as for economic feasibility, the only way my clients would be able to finance this -- they believe they have designed this project in a manner that makes the unit one that renters would be more excited to live in, the most excited to live in, and the planning department roux and exterior of a barn but gave no idea of how the interior should look -- and the planning department drew an exterior of a barn. it is a longstanding policy of the planning department that they do not do it for a property owner. they just critique what a property owner does. i do not know why it was done here. it is confusing. there was a great or nakedness, much more than that of a barn -- a greatcoat ornateness. they are saying it is a carriage house. we are confused. carriage houses were as ornate as the front buildings. finally, note i

right off of that, the eir fails to meet the standards.s the demolition of the rent-controlled products. this is not an impact to be studied. this is not -- this is an attempt to downplay an obvious take the issue. there is the state law housing definition. this is like saying i do not have a flat tire because i have a spare in the truck. some of these people will get replacement homes. some of them may not, but they are all being displaced.

eir that was prepared in 2009 -- we received a lot of comments on that document. in particular, the fishery issues in the alameda creek watershed were of great interest to a number of groups, other resource agencies. as a result of responding to comments, we developed the calaveras dam project variant, which is a variant of the original project which incorporates specific actions to improve the access of steelhead to the alameda watershed. steelhead trout have historical used in alameda watershed, have been blocked from that portion of the watershed in the past eight years or so. the sfpuc has been working groups diligently to restore steelhead to the watershed. as part of this project, we will be releasing significant additional flows into the watershed from the dam as well as from the alameda creek diversion dam. we will also be constructing a fish ladder around the alameda greek diversion than to allow passage of steelhead trout, past the diversion. we will also be installing fish screens to prevent entanglement of the steelhead. that was a major topic of discu

the issues raised a similar to those addressed in the eir. for the reasons provided in the pill response, the planning department believes that this complies with the requirements of the guidelines and provides an objective analysis of the potential impact of the project. the planning department recommends that the board upholds the certification. with that, i will conclude the staff presentation. >> any questions to planning or city staff? >> why don't we proceed to the real party in interest. >> i would like to thank the supervisors for carrying this item. i am the project manager. we would like to thank the supervisors for hearing this item and would urge the board to uphold a certification of the eir. i think you. >> thank you. are there any other members that wish to speak? >> i am speaking on behalf of the northern california carpenters regional council. we want to take this opportunity to praise the puc for approving the project. we urge that the board approves the resolution. >> in the other member of the public that would like to spe

i look forward to the eir, and to additional information as we go forward. however, at this time i am satisfied sufficiently to move initiation of items 14 b, c, and d. commissioner sugaya: second. commissioner antonini: i was very happy to have a presentation by some of the parties involved here regarding the laws governing the entire development. oftentimes, people will ask questions about the layout and why certain things are done certain ways. it was interesting to find out that while the federal government owns treasure island, they can do what they want. much of it comes under the tidelands trust fund, and is subject to administration by the state of california. the uses have to be in conformity. many of these are maritime uses, to use a generalized term which may not be entirely accurate, correct me if i am wrong, or uses that support those uses. for example, a hotel would support people there to enjoy some maritime uses. i guess my question is that probably we are seeing some distribution of different areas, but it could be subject to some degree of

one is that last month, we had a scoping session for the eir for the soccer field. over 50 people attended. 30 people spoke and expressed their concerns about this project. to detail for people who may not be familiar with the project, this is to install over 7 acres of artificial turf as well as 60-foot stadium lights and large parking, concrete paving, more lights, etc., in the western end of golden gate park, an area which the master plan says should remain wild and natural. of the people who spoke, over 30 people spoke and expressed their concerns about the project. i would say that sentiment was approximately 10-1 against the project. we have made a video of the highlights, and it is available on youtube. you can find a connection by going on to the sf ocean edge web site, or you can google the video for the soccer field. the second announcement i have is that we have talked before about the water treatment factory which is planned for the western end of the park. this is a 40,000 square foot factory, taking up another acre of landscape. there will be up to 30-

there is also one hearing regarding the draft eir. the goal of this series is to provide a more in-depth and up- to-date discussion about these projects and the progress made on some topics since the hearings. we would like to remind people that these are not for making comments on the draft eir and we would like to everyone to focus -- have their comments focus on the informational hearing. we will present a high level overview of the project, the strategy for complying with the seismic safety laws and the plan for health care delivery. the director of public works is here. the goal is to hope is on the health-care delivery plans, not delivery themselves. at the next hearing, we are proposing to discuss the architecture. the new buildings include a new hospital to oust the existing acute-care services. these will be a specialized neurosciences institute and a new hospital that will replace the existing hospital and provide for new medical office space or expansion space. we also propose to discuss a detailed overview of the rounds su

they did file an appeal on the calaveras dam eir, and that will be before the board budget committee tomorrow and before the full board next week. it has several components. i will try to give you an update on those. the first is that we will be paying $2 million. the $2 million would be to reimburse them for lost revenues for additional expenses because of the work being done over there. in some cases, it is about not having as many school groups go to that park area as they used to, to very large areas, like where there is a bridge, and when it was dry in the summer, they used to drive across is, and now that it will be wet, they cannot do it, so now, they have to build a bridge in alameda, so this would give them $2 million to pay for things. the second thing is that they do not want to have half of their staff working at the headquarters with the traffic and everything, so it will be giving them space in the courtyard, and we will be putting aside $50,000 towards a trailer -- so it will be giving elsewhere. the third is that we have been in a month-to-month lease with the park di

after the final eir is certified, the port would identify the available space and the tenants' needs. also the types of space that is available both on pork property and the private-sector turned to we currently don't have sufficient vacancies for all the tenants that would be impacted by this. any tenant relocation plans would go to the port commission for its approval. that is where we stand on the tenant relocation peace. >> i think we can go to public comment now. >> why don't we open this item up for public comment? >> we are only able to give you two minutes. >> i have requested this discretion. two separate matters. >> we will reset this. we cannot allow someone to see their time. >> i will disagree. -- which you might see on more t-shirts. the disposition of the 330. i strongly disagree with the city attorney's determination. this is a giveaway. this is a gift of public funds. we are $30 million, if you can believe mr. rose's determination. you are getting nothing for it. san francisco is one of the longest tenants. if you look at the pretty pictures, this is being thrown away

lastly at tuesday's hearing to consider the appeal of the calendar eir. this was scheduled as both consideration of appeal and later the board considered a. the parks district had reached a tentative settlement agreement. however, as you know, no approval action can happen until there is a valid document in place. and even with this, the board did not approve the settlement. it preserves their right to future of legal action. at the legal hearing this week, it was said they were satisfied with the settlement is approved by the board. the department in a brief presentation. the board upheld the decision to certify the eir. they also went on to approve the settlement. and there are some new ordnances introduced this week. the various ordnances -- there are some new ordinances introduce this week. the very -- the various ordnances were introduced. the mayor and board president david chiu introduced legislation relating to the north beach plant -- branch library. and supervisor mirkarimi introduced a revised proposal for your recommendation for fillmore stree

the requirements of the california environmental quality act and certifies the eir, this could be a venue site for the america's cup. they have tenants in all of those facilities who would be impacted by this. we are obviously very concerned about our tenants. the port has provided and will continue to provide regular updates to their tenants about information in the public records to make sure that they are aware of a host of thing you agreements. the staff has started out reached to those tenants to offer one-on-one meetings to give that information. a number of other city agencies, treasure island development authority, the redevelopment agency has experience with this kind of tenant relocation effort. if see what is approved, we would seek their advice as well. -- if seek whaceqa bid is approe would seek their advice. after the final eir is certified, the port would identify the available space and the tenants' needs. also the types of space that is available both on pork property and the private-sector turned to we currently don't have sufficient vacancies for all the tenants that wo