and the final eir -- draft eir and the final eir. the project will cause a loss of shoreside power at pier 37. cruise ships that berthed there will use their engines for power instead of using the facility on the pier. the draft eir said there would be seven ships -- 17 ships, and the final version increased to 40. the was already a significant amount of affected terms of air quality. now it is more than 100% higher of a severe impact. when you have a more severe, significant impact a after you close public comment, you have to recirculate. it is a classic requirement, he is closing to the public this impact is now more severe -- twice as severe than it was. the answer the planning department gave is that the increase is going to be offset by two things. one, we have fewer spectators. if you are talking about a different methodology for talking with inspectors, or different assumptions that came up after the draft eir, which is what happened here, and use that as a justification for talking about environmental impact not being as sev

between the initial study, draft eir, and comments and responses document, the eir comprises over 800es of detailed analysis for this relatively modest project. the eir determined there were some aspects which could not be mitigated with construction of the new fire station, but there are none with the museum expansion itself. we urge you to reject the appeal. the first claim is that the eir project description is inadequate and unstable because the final step method designed for the expansion product -- which give final schematic -- because the final shcematic designed for the expansion is not included in the plan. the final design demonstrates the height, masson, square footage, and materials -- massing, square footage, and materials described in the eir. it is the same distance from the windows in the hotel and does not encroach on hotel property. it affects views from the same number of hotel rooms. the materials are exactly as described. accordingly, the claim that the eir project description is uncertain are inaccurate is simply wrong as to access, currently the hotel -- is simp

the eir covers two into related projects. the city and county of san francisco and the america's cup event authorities proposed to host the 34th america's cup sailing races in san francisco bay in 2012 and 2013. the proposed the development of pure 27 as the harman crews terminal -- pier 27 as the herman cruise terminal. the draft eir was published on july 11, 2011, and the planning commission held a hearing on august 11. 245 written comments, the document published on december 1, 2011, including all comments and responses to those comments. the document also includes changes that either clarify information or make minor changes and corrections to the document. other changes were due to refinements to the project and alternatives, many which were refined, and then there are other clarifications or corrections that result in a change the findings and conclusions in the draft eir. ceqa guidelines section -- states that an agency is required to recirculates -- recirculate, and these identify significant information needed as any

we greatly hope you will support this eir. thank you. president chiu: i want to welcome our fire chief to the podium. >> very briefly, i would like to support this project. the fire department has enjoyed a productive working relationship with the museum of modern art. a great situation for them, but i think a better situation for us and the citizens' research. we currently reside at 676 howard, a crowded, aged facilities. we now have the opportunity to move into a state-of-the-art facility on folsom. we have an outreach with different agencies. supervisor kim has been particularly involved, as have other supervisors. we feel this is a win for the city and the fire department. we appreciate this project and how it moves forward. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> michael terrio. i will be brief. i think there was a thorough will buckle of the appeal. -- rebuttal of the appeal. in terms of the public view and affect of the museum, just as the original museum provided an enhancement to the public view, so the dramatic design will

, and thus the eir analysis is inadequate under the law. the final design is new information that was not made available to the planning commission, nor was it available to the public before that decision. the visual analysis, taking into account the actual line of the building which has now been released, should be revised and recirculated for public comment before going back to the planning commission. moma will no doubt point to the section 309 design review process as efficient review, but that process has never been intended to, nor is it, an appropriate substitute for ceqa review. the second substantive issue is the traffic analysis. the eir does not adequately consider the traffic impacts associated with vacating and closure of the alleyway that runs through the middle of the block and that serves as the main access to the hotel loading dock and service areas. the impacts are not sufficiently mitigated by the voluntary improvement measure that was added at the final eir stage in response to my client's comments. this is the primary a

we understand that review could include supplemental eirs. we expect that further review will be required. supervisor campos: that is important because there is a difference between a supplemental eir as opposed to what you just said, further review will be required. that is an important clarification. the second point, going back to the issue of the extent to which some of the financial constraints that are being faced by some of these agencies may impact to their ability to mitigate some of the environmental impacts, one of the things that needs to happen, is that to address that tension, the additional responsibilities that these agencies will face, there may be a need and modifications to the underlying agreement. i noted that is not the subject of this discussion, but is that something that the event authority is open to? >> i am not quite clear, i think you have something in mind. i would say for the purposes of this hearing which is about the adequacy of the eir, there has been a slight conflating about the issues of business transacti

with the planning department, who are here today representing the eir team. this was not -- was a really monumental undertaking, and i would like to acknowledge those people sitting in the second row. chris kerns, who has been working with the port as well as the planning department, the eir coordinator for the environment planning unit and the planning department, the ceo for esa associates who was and still is charging through the environmental review requirements for the project, joy of orion associates, and paul mitchell, who is with esa, which has this management team that really deserves an enormous amount of credit. that said, it could be appealed. there is a 20-day appeal period. if we get one that would be processed through the board of supervisors prior to their actions -- so with respect to the findings themselves, let me just go through those. as i mentioned, there have been project changes. some of them were already recognized in the final eir and were documented in the comments and responses document. layered on top of that are changes that have

the draft eir had a set of estimates. the final eir had another which was 80% lower. i do not have a crystal ball to know what estimates will be accurate here. supervisor avalos: you are touching upon one of the things that has been my big concern from the get go about the america's cup. september of 2010, we first had a term sheet agreement that was a pre agreement. already, there was a economic analysis which showed there would be $1.40 billion of economic activity, huge benefits, jobs that are available. it seemed like a great thing, moving down the way to providing a great deal of benefits to the bay area. i did not support the original agreement to begin with, because i felt it was too good to be true. we had the term sheet come before us again in december of that year. as chair of the budget committee, i worked toward trying to assure that we were not using a lot of public funds to support the race. we are trying to minimize the impact to the general fund. i felt confident we have done that. the numbers changed after that. the board had approved a term sheet. by

the eir does not quantify or provided description. the final eir includes a description of direct impact, such as direct impacts of questioning or removing vegetation. these are just a few of the appeals that were raised. the appeal letters raise issues similar to those already addressed in the eir. president chiu: thank you very much. i know there will probably be a lot of questions from colleagues, and i will start. i want to look at questions raised by the public about the jumbotron and constituencies. out of full disclosure, i should probably mention that in my early thirties, i had been known it to swim in the aquatic park as well. this is a large that you're talking about, 140 feet. there has been it concerns raised about whether that screen could tip over or potentially great. you talk about using a blow through design that has been used for short-term outdoor use and large temporary out your concert venues. i am wondering in kazakhstan and tested on the water for the length of time that we of the toddler of america's cup. -- i

i sued the city over every single eir approved by the planning commission. i have an appreciation for the process you are going through. i appreciate environmental review. this is the longest i have ever seen in my life. if we are responsible for that, i apologize. it seems a very thorough. the arguments in favor of turning it down, to me, seemed a bit thin, and now that the boob tube on the intertube has been cast overboard. there is one set of things that is not discussed, that is the lasting legacy of this project. sailors all over the world know that san francisco was one of the greatest places in the world to sell. not many of them will have the opportunity to come here and race. many of them will watch. many of them will see it in person. unlike the olympics events, unlike the world cup, the super bowl, the world series, the star of the show is not going to be the goats. it is not going to be the crew, it is going to be the bay. i am looking forward to having a worldwide constituency that comes to appreciate the richness, the beauty, and the resources

president chiu: at this time, the final eir has been certified. with that, why don't we go to items 15 through 17? >> item 15 is an ordinance amending the planning code to change the use classification of 676 howard st. and a portion of 935 pull some street. a and 16 orders the summary vacation of hunt street. item 17 amends the general plan map. president chiu: any discussion on these items? same house, call? -- same call? it is my understanding that supervisor olague can vote on these matters. i asked the court to put a quick call into her office for that -- i ask the clerk to put a quick call into her office for that. come on in. ok. we cannot take a roll-call vote on items 1527 -- we cannot now take a roll-call vote on items 15 -- we can now take a roll- call vote on items 15 through 17. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. >> the

, so we decided to pursue a full eir. supervisor avalos: any legal prohibitions or processes that would prevent us from making an appropriation prior to the approval of an eir? >> i am the deputy city attorney. the committee could certainly appropriate money, even for a project for ceqa review is pending. it is a policy called for you if you decided to hold that money back and keep on reserve until you saw the outcome of the ceqa approval appeared with respect for projects that have not yet been in the fine, so there is a large appropriation, but the department cannot articulate all the different projects that they will program that money toward. the board can appropriate the money, but understanding that the department is going to have to go through ceqa review and whatever level is appropriate if that is something that you want to be able stay in the loop on in terms of their decision, you can ask them to report to you. or you can pool -- you can appropriate the money but hold it in reserve until you're satisfied that c

celebrating the eir, a tremendous effort, and want to thank all the parties involved, particularly thehority, organizing authority, the america's cup managing team, court staff, port commissioners, the president of our port commission, thank you for being here. they are here to join us as we all converged last night. this is a great milestone in putting forth the america's cup. in addition to the environmental impact report passing, which allows the port to begin its work on the cruise ship and the other agreements never wanted to move forward on, we wanted to let you know we have been working, but in addition to the eir, other important issues raised during the many important public hearings. we have the rest of our port commission joining us as well. thank you all for joining us. the excitement is growing. i think i have thanked the port commission five times now, and i will continue to. during these periods of time, there was discussion of around long term development rights. in particular, they had to do with piers 14 and 14 1/2. along with the good work of port staff, particularly

that will require an eir. and the eir will start within the next few months. finally i am pleased to report that finally after several years, our new communications manager will start next week. i am pleased that you will be joining us at long last. with that, i will turn over to keith demartini to give you the details on next year's budget. >> thank you, and good afternoon. i have some handouts for the public. if anyone would like a copy of the presentation. thank you. it is my pleasure to be here today to present a draft board program for the upcoming two fiscal years. going over first draft of the on -- upcoming budget calendar for fiscal into what the current projection looks like. and over what the mayor's budget instructions have been for the upcoming two years of how it affects our department and going to more details about each division's work program. starting with the calendar, today is the 12th. we will present a draft of the program to you and next week to the historic preservation commission. in february staff will be presenting the draft budget r

there summarized and included within the eir. even though they are evolving, they are living documents each that will incorporate best practices. among those, they will respond to the performance requirements and all the mitigation measures you are proving as part of these actions. those are covered. with respect to the national park service and the national environmental protection act, the environment and review process, the ceqa equivalent they have to go through, that is ongoing and will be flowing through the documents in the spring. they have similar but somewhat different standards for their review. that information from the eir that is common to what needs to get covered gets picked up, and additional changes according to their interpretation of nepa will play out in those documents. for your purposes today, you are using the final eir as the basis of your action, and i have been advised by the city attorney that i do not need to walk you through all of these revisions. they are pretty much technical revisions to memorial

finally, the final eir does look at two alternatives. studies them. the no-project alternative, which is required, and the other alternative was the renovation of the existing pier 27 shed. your findings include the reasons for rejecting those alternatives in favor of the project. we have resolution 75 before you for the approval of the ceqa findings that will be the basis for then being able to consider the subsequent resolutions for the project approval. if you have any questions, happy to answer them. i'm happy to introduce the project director to bring it to the construction details. thanks very much. >> good morning, commissioners. i am the port project director. i will put the nuts and bolts in to make sure we can get into phase one construction. it is with great appreciation of the waterfront stakeholders that staff request commission approval of the following three additional matters in addition to what diane just presented. the funding and schedule extensions for department of public works, funding and schedule extension for our design team,

i did not read the entire eir. i read the mmrp, as they relate to the protection of biological resources, and there are many very good measures that have been proposed in this set of medications, but i am still concerned about a lack of enforceability with regard to some of them. for example, signage at what land sites. they're not working out at many of the wetland sites and other important ecological resources, so i hope that we are not underestimating the need for a very serious fencing program. also, in the measure dealing with the protection of the wildlife protection area, we have great language about the signs and fencing and resource monitors, but resource monitors cannot remove people who have decided to breach that fence, they cannot issue citations. i did not know if they will be trained on citizen's arrest, so there are something still up in the air with regard to the enforceability. with regard to accountability, we have for a lot of these measures both the of that authority and the city mentioned as r

i am here in support of the eir and the america's cup. there is a popular misconception is the proverbial moment in time in the city's life, that the sailors below into town and right back out again, leaving behind only the breeze and the waves. i am on behalf of the 122 employees. i am here to stay where in full support of the america's cup coming to san francisco for two reasons. the improvements along the waterfront and along the city as well as the impact of will be felt in the dollar's and the jobs but will be snapped up by the people who live here. the second level comes as a result of two things. first, the visibility that comes from hosting the third most revered of zandt. -- the third most viewed event. people have told their friends about the scene, the scenic beauty along the waterfront, and everything else there is to see and do. we believe that is the impact and would keep this city as successful and resilience as it has proven to be and will keep the ball around the world returning to the city by the bay. -- keep people arou