they don't bother putting it in me eir so no one soin -- -- they don't bother putting it in the eir so no one can see it. even though they have four standards, there is a general street protection requirement, and there is a specific requirement, 146. 295 is that you do not shadow parks. and that you have a general ceqa shadow rule. you have shadows and sunlight being highly pushed up there in the code, and they do not even attempt to put in an alternative that looks good. [chime] they violate every one of them. president chiu: any final questions? item 20 has been held and closed. colleagues, this matter is in the hands of the board. any discussion? are there any motions? supervisor daly. supervisor daly: i would make a motion to reverse the certification of the final eir to table item 21 and on item 23, direct the clerk to prepare findings specifically are around the shadow impact on the open spaces. president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos. any discussion?

that is not necessarily something that is within mthe ier. -- eir. that issue will be dealt with in the future and does not have to be completely addressed in the eir. i am pretty happy with it but will see what the other commissioners have to say. commissioner sugaya: one question to mr. fry, please. could you elaborate a bit? initially, we had an analysis that said -- there was an analysis that led to a mitigation issue. that meant that that analysis had some reason to believe there was an impact. so there was a mitigation measures that referred to the future design having to meet the secondary standards, i believe. but now we have rescinded that mitigation measure because one of the consultants said that it met the standards. >> tim fry on behalf of the planning department. commissioner sugaya: could you clarify? >> the scope of work -- that mitigation remains in place for many other components of the project, because we still want the hcp-required action on the certificate of the appropriateness. there are certain aspects of the building that are

i have reviewed the e.r. -- the eir. i think the city has done a great job and i recommend approval of the ceqa. >> my name is justin. i worked with tishman and wakefield brokerage firm in san francisco. i am a fifth generation san franciscan. my great grandfather was a small business owner, as well as my grandfather. we represent hertz corporation, thompson reuters, and others. there has been a dearth of large block space in san francisco. the developments currently on tap are not sufficient to house some of these firms. you saw the benefits of a firm staying in san francisco. over 2000 jobs are going to be for san franciscans and the bay area. it is critical that we provide large blocks of space for these tenants to stay in san francisco to draw from the technology and social media sectors. it is very exciting for our economy and the city of san francisco. i am in support of the certified eir and against the appeal that has been filed. thank you. >> michael karioke, san francisco building. this is exactly the sort of p

this is page 4.z.34 of the eir. it requires that the developer, with all of the work associated, and john meet the standards. that was a mitigating measure to make sure -- it shall meet the standards. that was a mitigating measure to make sure that it met with historic buildings. in the proposed final eir, it is eliminated. they have taken out that litigation measure. we did not know that it was not going to be there. that has been eliminated. if you look at the comments and responses, they have eliminated the mitigation measures that would have required them to comply with the secretary standards. it means either they can't do it, they won't do it, or they are hiding something that they are not telling us about. that is the basis alone to not approve this document. the second point that i wanted to make, the eir objective number one is to demolish the tower. in the eir document, when the comments and responses came in, isn't there some alternative to demolishing the tower? can we look at some alternatives? the deve

please approve the eir. president miguel: stephen gomez followed by others. >> ladies and gentlemen, stephen gomez, a resident of over 30 years. i am also president of the homeowners' association at california street, which represents 91 apartments, approximately 200 individuals. and also on the board of directors at 1177 california st., which has to wonder 50 apartments and close to 300 residents. -- which has 250 apartments and close to 300 residents. this has been explained to us by folks at the vermont at several occasions. our hoa's realize this is going to be a disruptive event for a number of years, but we think it will advance the quality of life on nob hill. nob hill has become steadily more residential over the past few years, and going to a motel we think will be beneficial. we think the residential presence will also be beneficial to the hill. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephen captain. i have been a resident of non- hill -- nob hill since 1972. i ha

i have reviewed the e.r. -- the eir. i think the city has done a great job and i recommend approval of the ceqa. >> my name is justin. i worked with tishman and wakefield brokerage firm in san francisco. i am a fifth generation san franciscan. my great grandfather was a small business owner, as well as my grandfather. we represent hertz

this is an appeal of the eir, not the project. but we are here to talk about today is the actual adequacy of the eir, and not the project itself, which has not been appealed. we looked at land-use compatibility, traffic, shadows. this project is on a site which has been zoned for this height and density for 25 years as part of the downtown plan. this site was always intended for a mix of office and residential use of this type and density. you will hear michael talk about this more. existing on the site to date is a parking lot that accommodates 200 cars. the existing project has less than half that amount of parking on site. the shuttle impact that has been described will run along second avenue. the height proposed for this project is" compliant along second avenue. the proposed rezoning in front of you is not for the part of the site along second, but is for the western edge and occupies 15% of the site. a fairly small percentage of the site is offered for rezoning. we will present you with more detail. >> thank you, members of

when additional documents or the amended eir or expanded sections of the eir are completed, there is some public notice, and the public would certainly have some time to review those changes. again, there are set time frames under ceqa if it does trigger a recirculation issue that we would have to look at once the changes are complete. president miguel: ok. so if we can just -- i guess we can possibly shoot a date out there and see where we are once we have got the revisions made. linda, secretary avery, can we will get something that sounds reasonable here? >> commissioners, i have your calendars through december. the only calendars that are available for this project -- a project of this magnitude would be the ninth or the 16th of december. president miguel: that is too soon, i am hearing. >> according to staff, they do not believe they can get those changes in that amount of time. you are looking at january or february. so take your pick. president miguel: i would say if you agree we can try for a january date at this point. if we are not ready, we can always move it further back.

we agree that the eir

i want to highlight the inadequacy and eir. the proposed condo's should not be treated like common housing stock. they will be occupied just a small fraction of the year. they will not support the same kind of employment as typical residences would. we raised this during the comment time. the staff responded dismissively, saying that the common does not raise issues regarding the accuracy of this eir. they went on to restate that the demand for employees services by hotel guests would be reduced, but a similar number of police currently providing guest services would be expected to provide similar services to new residents. this defies common sense and it defies our of the -- experience as comparable structures in san francisco. these hotel-branded condominiums are not designed as primary residences. at the four seasons, less than 1/3 of the condos are registered as primary residences. the number is even fewer at the st. regis, and that is the figure that has been stable since he property opened nine years ago. many of the rest

one is missing from the eir. when we adopted the downtown plan, there was a requirement for some might access to public sidewalks in t3 districts. the streets in the south of market art second street and new montgomery. all the other streets protected in the downtown plan are north of market. these are the only to streets. the sunlight analysis -- the shuttle analysis -- how was it done? it was done in a memo that was done by the developer and given to staff. it was not in anin the ier. -- eir. it was not tested, it was not commented on. the analysis of shadows under prop k -- we have shadows under prop k. we have shows that are particularly important on second street. you do not have that tested or analyzed with the impact on housing. i am going to get back to shadows later on, in my closing, but you need to hear about how this affects families in the south of market that live near here. as i said, this is right across from the transit district area. thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i have t

we request that this eir not be certified. thank you. president miguel: following this, linda stone, irma, jim -- >> i am a resident and property owner in san francisco. it is my understanding that the draft will be certified today under the condition that if it is deemed adequate with completeenss. -- completeness. we don't believe that an attempt was made for the advocacy of the public community. it is unbelievable, and one has to ask, what plan are they on? there are over 700 pages with the proposed project costing millions of dollars and identify only one significant unavoidable impact, how can that be? that's incredible. it defies all reasonable logic and corrupt the true intent. mainly finding a viable way to utilize the existing power. the magnitude of this development defined by its massive size, time duration of demolition and construction, the ongoing severe disruption of daily life for over three years for those who live and visit the district of san francisco. it begs the question if the applicant is providing a gross, overri

that should be connected to the accuracy of the eir. please speak clearly so we can have an accurate transcript. and please state your name so that you can be adequately identified and you can be sent a copy of the comments for this document. after hearing the comments of the general public we will take any comments by the planning commission. the public comment period began september 15 until november 2, 2010. this concludes my presentation on this matter. and unless the commission has any questions i would ask that the public hearing be open. >> >> my comment card is for lee molten. you are right. is there any public comment on this item, the draft eir? in that case, public comment is closed. as you have heard, the comment period is open until november 1. this is monday. >> november 2nd. >> november 1st is on the draft eir. >> that was because the project was continued. >> i don't have a problem. tuesday. very good. antonini? commissioner antonini: this was well done and compliant with planning. it goes on to present other alternative

the initial eir submitted only had one sentence in several thousand pages on seismic safety.t shirk that responsibility to the california division of safety. in my discussions with them, their staff indicated that dam safety is the responsibility of the owner and not merely the regulators. without budgets, they could not handle further studies. as you are probably aware, the last corigns were down in 1977. i believe a more comprehensive process is essential. because of the dire consequences of the dam failure to my property and my neighbors, the town of hillsborough, the downtown business corporation of san mateo, and the flat lands, the hillsborough city school district has 250 elementary school students that straddle the creek. there is a limited 30-day water supply in the event of a dam failure. there would be consequential adverse impacts to water and sewer bonds on the peninsula and this agency. i respectfully request that steve ritchie's commitments made in a letter to the town of hillsborough be solidified and made part of your motion on this matter and be made a commi