de eir -- the eir is required for the properties. we have asked for the draft eir to be released next summer and we would go from there with the normal process of the eir. the commission has to certify the eir before you can approve the occupancy of any building. we're moving forward with the enactments and the eir. next year will be an important here to try to bring this to resolution. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, if there is no further discussion, or deliberation, madam president, i would ask the closing of the public hearing and the substance of the i.m.p., i would ask that you close this meeting. president olague: meeting is adjourned. this is a regular meetg of the san francisco planning commission. i would devise everyone to turn off their electronic devices during these proceedings. we have a crowded room today so just let me make an announcement. we will not accept any disruptions. we ask that you take any discussions outside. there is no standing in this room. find a space or go outside. once overflow has b

my comments are on the certification and final eir. you have a letter we submitted earlier this week on the same topic. all my clients generally are in support of the project, we feel strongly that the environmental review work has not been done adequately. we object to the certification and final eir because of the deficiencies we identified in the draft that have not been corrected. we believe the comments were not sufficient, and the new mitigation measures that were added during the final eir process are not enforceable. we have three key concerns. first generally described as design, and what i mean by that is that the project description is not complete because we do not have a final design for this project or even a near-final design. if you look at different sections, you will see a different description of the height and bulk of the building. for example, in the project description, it describes a maximum height of 320 feet, but if you look at the aesthetic impact section, it examines the aesthetic impact of a 220-foot project

the eir looks fine to me. i hope politicians can embrace trying congestion fees to mitigate the air pollution. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> sue hester. i know nobody struggled to bring this document up, because it weighs so much. you have a report on downtown center two weeks ago that talked about the assumptions that were made by the city when this was drafted around 1980. the assumptions that were made about how people were going to work, about the amount of office space, about the way people wanted to work in buildings. the report you have two weeks ago was that people do not want to work in tower office buildings. we have had a shrinkage in the financial district. people want to work in different types of spaces, like the last agenda item. the assumptions that were made on 25 years of growth in 1980 have not come to pass. we needed to think differently. this is going back to those assumptions. if you look at the eir -- it is too heavy to list -- to lift, but it is on page 6. i will show you,

de eir -- the eir is required for the properties. we have asked for the draft eir to be released next summer and we would go from there with the normal process of the eir. the commission has to certify the eir before you can approve the occupancy of any building. we're moving forward with the enactments and the eir. next year will be an important here to try to bring this to resolution. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, if there is no further discussion, or deliberation, madam president, i would ask the closing of the public hearing and the substance of the i.m.p., i would ask that you close this meeting. president olague: meeting is adjourned. supervisor campos: good morning, and welcome to the thursday, november 10, 2011 meeting of the board of supervisors government audit and oversight committee. my name is david campos, the chair of the committee. i am joined by supervisor mar ferrell, as well as president david chiu. the clerk of the committee is andrea ausberry. covering the meeting for sfgtv are mark and derek. do

de eir -- the eir is required for the properties. we have asked for the draft eir to be released next summer and we would go from there with the normal process of the eir. the commission has to certify the eir before you can approve the occupancy of any building. we're moving forward with the enactments and the eir. next year will be an important here to try to bring this to resolution. president olague: thank you.

we drafted a letter on the draft eir and what i will do now is read that into the record. thank you for the opportunity to comment on the transit center plan. we believe that this adequately analyzes the impact of the plan. this is critical to the future of san francisco and the region. this is a major regional center home to over 250,000 jobs. over 50% of workers and use a sustainable transportation mode. this is largely due to a key facts. first, san francisco has the best regional access. the developments will build on the successes by creating a world-class station including the high-speed rail. we would like to evaluate future job and housing growth. the study concluded that downtown san francisco would not need the future demand under futures zoning. the transit center district plan addresses the need by increasing his own incapacity. we have had the opportunity to review the shadow impact of the plan. with one exception, shadow from having building would cover any affected section for less than 45 minutes per day over a period of time ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. the

de eir -- the eir is required for the properties. we have asked for the draft eir to be released next summer and we would go from there with the normal process of the eir. the commission has to certify the eir before you can approve the occupancy of any building. we're moving forward with the enactments and the eir. next year will be an important here to try to bring this to resolution. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, if there is no further discussion, or deliberation, madam president, i would ask the closing of the public hearing and the substance of the i.m.p., i would ask that you close this meeting. president olague: meeting is adjourned. >> the next time you take a muni bus or train, there could be new technology that could make it easier to get to your destination. many are taking a position of next bus technology now in use around the city. updated at regular intervals from the comfort of their home or workplace. next bus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track buses and trains, estimat

perhaps part of the eir, i do not know. i believe this institutional master plan falls flat on its face because housing, if you just take the sound bites, is one of the biggest concerns. with the increase in housing, there is a major concern about transportation. the transportation has to go hand in hand with roads and housing, including the mission and rapidly changing the attitudes of our transportation, how the current university operates, relative to what they will be doing in the future. i think that is a disclosure statement need to have as part of this document. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i partially disagree. i think this imp is comparable to what we have received from other universities and institutions. it is longer because it has to be, a much more complicated situation. obviously, many institutions are very small in one location, so a two-page sheet, with a rough sketch, is certainly adequate for their imp. because of the complexity of the situation, and it points out a lo

and the adoption of the final eir is anticipated next fall. we're already working on the 30% design in cooperation with sfmta. it looks as though this project is now ranked as the highest priority nationally for federal small starts. it can be a reality. not very far behind it is the geary project eir which is now going through the same stages as the van ness one. we're now in the throes of during the capacity modeling that needs to be done on these projects. four different alternatives. not that different from van ness. that project has a number of additional challenges, in particular the intersections of fillmore and masonic, which of course is under the other street and generate some challenges and some opportunities. i will continue to keep you posted on progress on that project. we have also been making significant progress on the state of the sentences the transportation plan. this is our 30-year look at transportation needs. it feeds right into the regional efforts on the regional transportation plan. and we completed the first phase of

it is basically a voluntary measure that appears in the final eir. what my clients are looking for is some certainty going into the future. what we have asked moma to give us is an easement that would take us across the property to our road -- loading dock. that would be equivalent to when you get with a public street. the problem with what you have here is my clients have no way to enforce that. the city, the planning department is not going to have the time or the energy to be monitoring and enforcing the measure themselves. my clients want something that is legally defensible, legally permanent, and they can force themselves. not some sort of voluntary thing from the hotel. the biggest problem is it does not satisfy you on the findings for the streets and highways code, that is the biggest problem from the city's perspective. supervisor mar: can you explain why hunt street is necessary for public use as well? >> my client are members of the public. that is one reason. also, it is -- there " i am wondering -- supervisor mar: i am wondering. grex th

we have prepared a final eir/eis. it has been posted and the federal register, starting on october 21. we are at the final day review time for the final eir/eis. we expect a decision by the end of november. i will be in front of the program's board next month for the action. that is a major milestone for the project. very quickly, our intent is to complete the final design next year to relocate the historic buildings that are reference before to put this out to construction advertisement in the summer of 2013 and be in a position to start construction in 2014. that is all being worked out, the details are being worked out closely with cal tran, because their intent is to open up the new bay bridge in the fall of 2013. and once they would open up the new bridge, we will start construction on the new france. the old rams will still be in place for a couple more years. - ramps- ramps will still be ine for a couple more years. what we refer to the west side of the island. there are a series of nine bridges that former tre

we believe the eir even with the final eir is inadequate. specifically i wanted to talk about this. i wanted to make sure it is clear that everyone understand my clients do not expand the expansion. we understand the value that will bring to the neighborhood. they do have some legitimate concerns and just because the project is popular does not mean that the city is not equally obligated to meet its requirements. it is under ceqa. and under streets and highways. talking about the vacation of hunt street, i also have a diagram that perhaps would clarify some of the issues. can i get the overhead? this is the area out of hunt street that you are considering today. this is the one that moma referred to. this is under an easement for the benefit of the public. that means that legally it is the public street. this idea that hunt street is somehow disconnected from the rest of the street grid is legally incorrect. this is a public street. this is a public street and it connects. this is a public right-of-way as well. it does connect all the way through the block. this is a pedestrian but

there was no mention of the eir issue. the department says that despite any deficiencies, and there are many, they are in favor of this project. the parks and recreation -- but they were looking to influence the local election. and parks and recreation, they were going to cancel the commonwealth club council on these issues. they tried to change the makeup of the panel and the content of the discussion. this has led to rulings of the sunshine task force, for parks and recreation, and therefore, through the december 1 hearing, we ask for a time for intelligent public comment. we will make certain that you yourself have adequate time for your own concerns. we look forward to hearing your comments and we know that you will review this carefully. working to restore the historic integrity of golden gate park. both for today and for future generations of the people of san francisco. request an extension of the public comments. >> and is there any additional public comment? >> we were going to calendar that item to discuss the ex

there was a mention of a van ness eir that had been released. i get every notice. i'm the only person that gets categorical exception. the fact that i got no notice whatsoever of that the i are shocked me and it is very hard and tedious to track it down. i would like you to have a presentation on how that happened, how did we get into a position where the mta does not follow the procedures that the rest of the city follows. no one got notice. there was a group of people that were on task forces that they had, that they gave notice to. it was not on any planning department notice list at all. this is a big project and i hear that you will have a hearing on it. who knows about it? who is going to comment on it? the basic question is mr. white should be required to give a presentation about how this happened and are there any instances where the city agencies have fallen out of the procedures. i think it would be an eye opener to find out that you have exempted things. the other issue that should be discussed is the categorical exemptions because we have no more notic

it obviously, as and eir should, considers the maximum build out. i do not truly expect that maximum buildup ever to be achieved. i think it is going to be a lot less. but then i am no economic guru. in any case, it is when to totally change the downtown skyline. i think the focus simulations give us a good idea of that. my concern is not the powers at their top and the separation. i am still, as a voice before, concerned with what happens down on the ground. they are commented upon in the document. the downtown streetscape plan of 1995, the trend space streetscape plan of 2006 -- transbay streetscape plan of 2006, and the plan of 2010. that is where i think everything is important. that is where the public is: to thrive. that is where the district is going to thrive. the manner of the bill to form at the sidewalk is much more important to me the new tower separation in order to achieve 50 feet in height. those things at the top are easy to work with. the personal impact on the ground level is extremely difficult to deal with. because it comes in th

we should have done this five years ago but we spent a lot of time on the eir. we should do this project. this is an important project. just looking at it, at this presentation, now we just talked about like -- bike lanes, then we don't. we talked about being interested in our carbon footprint, then we don't. i would like to hearing -- have a hearing on this if possible. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i just want to come and encourage you and the board of supervisors to have dedicated lines so we don't have cars moving in. we should have level boarding so that people can get on quickly. then the trances signal priority so that the buses can go and move freely. i would like to encourage you between mrs. street so that there is not the back up and bunching and i like to encourage you to support this project. thank you. >> thank you. is any other member of the public that would like to speak? colleagues, this is an informational item. do we have anything to add? ok. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> introduction of items. >> colleagues

it is in eir. traffic has been looked at in a variation of eir. >> it is currently a private club. had there been some taxes or reduced rates for local residents? i seem to recall something along those lines. will provisions be made for some affordability for local residents to have access to the club? >> as part of an inducement to rent in the golden gateway rental apartments, the owner of the club discounts it by some percentage at the moment. we have made very clear that there is not going to be any preference given to the buyers. there will be just like everybody else. they can go apply to the golden gate and pay their money. we're not going to own the club. we have no right to pledge it to people. we're very interested in helping. in a lot of the neighbors are very supportive of the project. they live in the same apartment units. they are keen to have the programs continue. before the opponent's suit this is a -- that is incorrect. the lawsuit is over. it was found not to be valid. we've reached out to many of the members who helped to design this. this has all been talked abo

the ceqa team pulled off an amazing feat in getting a draft eir out in july. 2000-page document analyzing both the event in 2012 and 2013 and all the construction activities associated with it, and the cruise terminal project. but the construction of the cruise terminal and long-term operation of the cruise terminal. about a 2000-page document with 2000-plus pages of comments. there is a great deal of attention on this secret document, and responses to comments are being prepared right now by the ceqa team. publication of the final environmental impact report could take place as soon as the beginning of december. eir certification -- we are aiming now for a mid-december certification hearing at the planning department. it is not just ceqa that is required for this event. because of the various federal approvals by the coast guard, by the national park service, by the army corps of engineers with respect to building certain things in port jurisdiction, compliance with the national environmental policy act is required as well. the national park service and coast guard are the lead agencies

what is different about this plan at a slightly different than in the eir , for instance, is working through this and showing the desire to have public access and circulation around that. that is something we have been working through, insuring that the facilities are properly placed. again, these are all temporary facilities. in this case, we would all be taken down after the race. one of the requirements to use the land, and we're working closely with them to use some educational programs. here, we have the marina green. 2012 will be the main village, which is different. in 2013, that will shift to a rigid to pierce 27 through 29. this is really the center of activity that is going to take place here, in particular long waterfront. you can see the temporary docks installed right in front, and you can see under no. 13 there, those are actually race votes that would come out of the water. we would have a crane their, temporarily located to bring the votes in when they are not raising and right when the race starts, they go into the water so it is clear and open. they are essentially

many of the issue will be discussed as part of the eir, which has been mentioned by other commissioners. i think that is entirely true. just a few observations.