payment of a citywide basis allows us to offset the community impact. the transportation projects are not expected to pay a fee or undergo transportation impact analysis under ceqa. they are not in conflict with crowding measures. there may be significant or sustained destruction to a transit corridor where additional analysis would be required. we would be looking at design options. the transportation sustainability fee is supposed to replace the t.i.d.s. it is intended to offset the cumulative impact of the transportation system, charging a proportionate share to the land use project. the planned area impact fees, there was an assumption during adoption of the plans that if a citywide she were to come into effect which covered a particular category of public benefits, the area fees would be credited to both city-wide fees. +it is in excess of the proposd city-wide feed that the differential would remain for geographic specific improvements. briefly, on t.i.d.s., until there is a sustainability fee, those of the mechanisms to offset the impact on deve

development impacts -- air quality, and other impacts on air quality. the significant impacts include noise and air quality. so, again, the december 15 planning commission certified the eir. on december 16, the port commission approved the project and adopted a statement of overriding consideration that explains how the benefits of the projects outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. the mitigation and monitoring and reporting programs were also adopted at that meeting. the board received two appeal letters before january 4 deadline, one from keith wagner, representing san francisco tomorrow, golden gate audubon society, telegraph hill dwellers, and others, and a second letter from rebecca evans on behalf of the sierra club's san francisco group. since then, there have been three separate appeal memos from the appellant, one on january 17, two yesterday, january 23, and as we receive the latest letter at the close of business, we have just submitted our response memo to the board. we also submitted responses to the dolphins and south and

the operational air quality impact, the impact remains a significant and unavoidable. 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

the question you asked us -- what is the degree of impact? what is the severity of the impact? that is unknown on a host of details where this language is included. supervisor campos: this letter talks about mitigation. it talks about monitoring. it talks about restoration's that need to take place. it focuses specifically on the municipal and transportation agency in the port of san francisco. it talks about how you are talking about two agencies that are already facing their own financial to lounges. you have a budget deficit within the mta. you have other challenges the board of cent -- the port of san francisco has. the idea -- that becomes more challenging. can you provide more detail on that? >> on the specific measures, jennifer cleary is here. she is more familiar with those aspects of the corporate -- of the project. there are lots of impacts that are significant but unavoidable. the way to approve the project, given that, is to do the statement of overriding considerations that they outweigh the harm. those are tied to the amount of money generated from the spectators

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 severe as otherwise, that triggers recirculation all by itself. the rationale for not recirculating is a rationale that would require a circulation. the other rationale the planning department gave was that there would be a decrease in air pollutant emissions by installing shoreside power at pier 70, which is another mitigation measures added to the eir. on the next page of the memorandum t

when you select impact mode, the tool engages the impact mechanism.delivers powerful pulses of energy to the screw or bolt. the same technology is used on automotive impact wrenches. >> so, what does all of this mean to you? it means that stripped screws and bolts are a thing of the past. >> and no more switching back and forth between tools. >> i can go from a drill just by switching it back to number two here, that gives me a higher speed. one's gonna give me a little more torque. and then, of course, with impact. so it allows me to go back and forth between bits super fast with quick release. >> now, this attachment, the right-angle attachment, is a miracle worker. it allows me to get into really tight spaces other drills wouldn't-- watch this. [♪...] [whirring] voila! see how easy that is? [♪...] >> o.k., you're using an ordinary drill/driver. you're driving screws and you hit a tough spot, say a knot or whatever. the screw won't move, you muscle it and pretty soon, the bit pops off the screw head or you end up rounding out the screw head. we've a

the eir does not consider any of the impact of the construction other than the air quality impact. everything else is dismissed. we believe the eir must be recirculated so that the full impact of construction would be considered. again, i would ask that you send the eir back to planning for revision to comply with the law. if not, i would ask that you forgo a decision today to allow the parties more time to reach an agreement. i am available for questions. president chiu: any questions? supervisor weiner: putting aside supervisor weiner: putting aside the merits in the requests for

what we building with impact the money? you can see some work on market street and some work on some major intersections along market and a bicycle lane work. this is what we are programming impact fee money for. but a lot more work is happening with non-revenue -- non-impact the money revenue. bill little orange pies -- if it was a full circle, that means the impact the money is paying for 100% of the project. there is no case where impact fee is running the entire project. this says helping us think creatively about how to take the impact the money and stretch it along with other public sources. the big projects are the haight street project which we got a major grant for and pedestrian improvements along market street. balboa park, this is the example of the -- of what is the back of the report. there are a lot of projects identified and the revenue is quite small. in balboa park, we have differed a lot of the work until more detail transportation planning is completed. we are doing more work to figure out how to resolve

the impact on views from private guest rooms are not considered to have an impact. eir and college there would be few in practice on hotel rooms from private hotels, but those are not significant. the events in the theory that views from private hotel rooms are really public views, because any member of the public can rent a room. we submit that those views remain private, no matter who rents a room. guests are only there for a few nights at a time. even if the view is impeded, the index is temporary. the boot should reject this and uphold a longstanding policy that considers public views part of the environment, but not private views. this is no more than a tactic in the ongoing campaign to attract cash from sfmoma, despite settled law and years of ceqa analysis in san francisco. they believe views from the hotel are deserving of special protection and private compensation. for months, they have been demanding the museum paid millions of dollars for building a 200 ft tall museum next to the 325 naoto, even though the current high limit is 320 feet. we submit this i

some of these impacts are still being significant. once that is done, your obligations are clear under ceqa. you have to mitigate those to the maximum extent feasible. hear, that has not been done. for instance, talking about the mitigation program requires payments into a fund that replaces old diesel engines with clean diesel engines. is it feasible? the air quality management district says it is. the rationale for why it is it is supported by the case law. the planning department says it is not. their rationale is not supported by the case law. it is pretty clear the city will not fulfill its legal obligations if it proceeds without logic. it is just one example, there are others. >> the mitigation of pier 70's new shoreside power -- you are saying it is speculative and and feasible, given we do not have funding for it? -- it speculative and unfeasible, given we do not have funding for it? >> if you look at the planning department memo in response to the air quality district collector, on page 4, they say the increase in air pollut

included in your package is the report on the collection of a developer impact fees. you will notice, historically, going back 10 years, the district has collected, on average, $7 million-$8 million per year on developing -- on developer impact fees until three years ago when the bottom fell out on the world economy. as of last year, recollected about $1.5 million. it is interesting to note -- it is an indicator of the upward trend of the economy moving in a positive direction in san francisco that it this year we collected slightly over $3 million carried that tells you that there were either 50% more building permit applications filed or as a significant number of larger applications that were filed. that is a good of word trend for the city and for us as well, if we can get back on target. some of those impact fees were spent on the design and construction of the brand new tech 21 building at john o'connell, which a number of u.n. to the grand opening last week. it was a very successful day. a number of dollars were spent over the summer to recreate facilities and

there is an impact. last thing before my three second tour now, a wide to give you a snapshot of the impact of a big box fiscally. i thought that might be of interest. >> it would be helpful to know how long you have been operating. >> for locations in the city. the first one opened sometime in 1920. it has been in my family for 50 years and we have four locations here. we have a good brand in the city and we do a good job with customer service and filling people's needs. during our first year in our mission street store which is fairly close to filelowe's. that has had a huge financial impact. the other is through attrition and. we have shrunk our business by six meaningful positions. and that is not compared to the 50 positions they have hired. i do not know what they have today versus what they have opened their doors. that is a real impact on our city as well as our business. we're surviving and not going anywhere. i thought the numbers would be meaningful. i also mentioned we have someone from b & b

the eir does not consider any of the impact of the construction other than the air quality impact. everything else is dismissed. we believe the eir must be recirculated so that the full impact of construction would be considered. again, i would ask that you send the eir back to planning for revision to comply with the law. if not, i would ask that you forgo a decision today to allow the parties more time to reach an agreement. i am available for questions. president chiu: any questions? supervisor weiner: putting aside the merits in the requests for continuance, this came to the land use committee in november, if i am not mistaken. >> it may have an early december. supervisor weiner: so some time ago. i know at the time there were disputes and the parties were going to have discussions to try to resolve it. so i am a little skeptical of a request for additional time for discussions, given that there has already been quite a good opportunity to do that. i just wanted to put that out there and see what you have to say about that. >> as you know, there are a number of complex issues a

there are some impacts that would remain unavoidable impacts despite these measures and these impacts include for the america's cup events in 2012 and 2013 and long-term, the land use impact for the long-term development under the host agreement. cultural resources impact also for the long-term development at pier 3032, transportation impacts for ac-2012 and 2013 event, several intersections at secondary viewing areas. transit impacts remain unavoidable that would exceed of muni lines the presid-go transit service, ferry lines, golden gate ferry line, blue and gold ferry lines, san trans lines and transit operations related to additional congestion and destruction of regular scheduled ferry operations and transportation network impact in combination with other special events in san francisco happening simultaneously and we did fine long-term developments for impacts for transportation also. a couple of other impacts that did remain significant, unavoidable included noise and air quality as i had touched on earlier. accumulative air quality impacts would remain. for the cruz terminal t

-- it impacts. you may want to put a threshold for that. the most concerning portion is the very last sentence, "the requirements of this section are directly in the failure of the city to comply with them shall not provide a basis to invalidate any city action." i am concerned about that. if i understand it correctly, even if it isn't done, it doesn't invalidate the legislation and that needs to be tightened. all in all, i applaud the mayor. we have seen this could put on the ballot and passed. president o'brien: i thin said both the president of the board of supervisors and the city comptroller would measure the impact on jobs. >> i can clarify. in the version we are working on now, that determination will be a piece of feedback that we heard pretty universally, that is appropriate for the comptroller to decide and it conforms roughly within the existing obligations anyway. that is the version that will be the controller. [chime] president o'brien: i respect your opinion in you have a very histori

fully analyzes the significant environmental impacts. at the time the board considers approval of the project. and when the board then would don't the reporting program, the board would then have the opportunity to determine the feasibility of that mitigation measure. when the board approves the reporting program, you can find different things on the findings of that mitigation measure. >> superveist -- supervisor campos? >> thank you. following up on that, mr. benson. and i appreciate supervisor avalos' thinking on this. and definitely i'm happy toer that there's been a change. there's a cost that comes with that. again you heard the earlier discussion about the extent to which, the ability to actually pay for mitigation could impact the environmental and says that we have to do here. and so how much is it going cost the port to deal with this -- with this mitigation -- with this issue? >> this is a big and important question. and it's something sma we've been struggling with to try and paint a big picture. the project itself would be $

we look at the projected impact fee revenue. ! projects given the work projects they have and this year, we have done a lot of work to make sure the agencies are hearing what happens and so each agency has presented about the major work projects and it was an opportunity for dialogue to happen. in your packet, you will see the final recommendations and those were supportive of the direction you were going. this is first presented to the planning commission and in early february, we will go to the capital planning committee and then finally we will go to the board of supervisors. falling back, the agencies will take the budgets we have created, projects in the budget and actually start building that next year. that is very exciting. i wanted to share with you the projected impact revenue plan for each area. we have divided into budgeted and forecasted. the budgeted pieces

and if i could back to the question about the wind impacts. in fact, the wind impacts were studied in the eir, and there was a preliminary conceptual modeling that was done. but what we did not have were any public access or design improvements that were put into that wind impact analysis. so they sort of took a blank slate and made some general projections about what kind of wind conditions that we would have and then call the fourth that there would be cyanates or improvements would provide shelter areas. it is more in the context of the design work that we're doing now, to talk about what kinds of studies should be in our future to come up with design improvements for the public access area at the tip. >> let me just add that, independently, the mta has had at least one and possibly more hearings to look at service in the northern waterfront and beyond. so did the very much on their radar screen. >> in legal terms, we would call a lead-in question. >> yes, thank you. and the mitigation for the exploratoryium project. >> i appreciate one of

impacts. as earlier stated by the gentleman in support of the appeal, if the jumbotron goes in, people should not be swimming at aquatic park. i echo my fellow members' request that they approve the eir without the jumbotron or put it back for analysis about the potential impacts as well as considering realistic alternatives. there has been no consideration whatsoever of alternatives, and that is also called for. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board. i live in the richmond district. as a sailor myself, i am looking forward to watching others navigate the sometimes treacherous currents of the bay. i also swim in the bay, in the dead of winter, without a wetsuit, of my own free will. i love it more than anything in the world, and so do hundreds of others people. every day, we swim in the cove, to bits and exercise and even cavort with our see friends. -- sea friends. it is a longstanding san francisco tradition. i am conce

that will impact many of office buildings and have a devastating impact on the economy. i think someone should take the time to do real economic study of how the rate restrictions will impact the economy. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is kris pemberton, and i am an architect here in sentences go. our firm does a lot of residential projects. i would like to speak in favor of the legislation, really with respect to two things. the f.a.r. allowance that would seek inclusion very housing would not be included. i think that is a very good thing as we look at projects, because it will create neighborhoods where you have affordable housing on site together with market rate, which is that a great thing for the city i think. i am in support of that. i am also in support of the allowance that you removed the did to the limit for these sites, because you will create more housing in these neighborhoods, which is really the intent of the plan. i am speaking to support that. thank you. >> my name is tin chao. i am here to express our opposition to the legislation,

the economic impact on existing restaurants. as is, the city ordinance for food trucks to operate in san francisco is unfair and is one- sided, only to benefit the operators and investors behind them. we would like to ask the board of appeals to ask the board of supervisors to limit this ordinance and have the existing restaurants represented to be part of the decision making. their lives are at stake here. 14 years ago, we built portico. we signed the lease and committed a significant amount of investor money. we come before you 14 years later trying to beg for our life. the city is permitted this food truck to park at 61 beale. it is not only that one. there is another one and they will take up five days per week. i would like to show you the income and expenses that they have projected. v.k. industries wants to part certain days of the week on jbeil street. -- on beale st. each one says they're going to make $2,000 per day. $250,000 per year there would be taking out of this restaurant located on beale st. that is a lot of mo

and how the impact is far and away greater on any of joining activities.nd their impact pales in comparison. i would hope that they will continue to work on design. i don't think the project is at odds with a good services of any of the other organizations. they own certain land, they have a right for their activities, and there is no reason to believe that in any way, those will be impacted. i think the owners have a list of about 10 different activities that owners have to sign and knowledge. you can't stop someone from commenting, but we live in the city close to each other and people have to get along. certainly those that were there first have the activities that we have to protect most. when the housing goes next to the entertainment news, people say it is too noisy, but you knew it when you moved in there. i would not have sympathy for anyone who bought a condo and complained about the activities. there is no reason why those activities should not continue, and i would favor the project. commissioner borden: i am familiar with the site, and i know y

, just to give you any impact of the treasure we are going to use. i have a list i'm going to put on the screen. the canada goose, a turkey vulture,'s bray, read tailed hawk, read at shouldered hawk, peregrine falcon, md., calif. gulf, western goal, mourning dove, hummingbirds, i'm going rather fast -- woodpeckers, ravens, crows, swallows, night hatches, mockingbirds, chickadees, waxwings, robbins, warblers. etc and -- etc. and so forth. with bubble warming and the rise of sea level, this will be more important. the need for these up land refuges will become vital to the survival of the species. we hope this will be covered more thoroughly in the final environmental impact report as well as supporting the compromise alternative. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> linda chapman for nob hill senior housing. i've been to the federal district court to try to get the filings and so forth and on link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c the city ought -- the city attorney had a long conversation with you. what da

good >> the one impact i did not realize is the impact on taxes, because they have to account that novicas income. one plus one equals two, and i like to know what the impact is going to be. >> we will look at -- >> that seems to be the number one concern i am hearing. >> we will take a look at that. in some ways it should be paying for expenditures, because i do not think they do a surcharge. >> they are not, but i want a clarification. good >> is the fee they are collecting is more than what the bag costs, they would have to account as additional revenue? ok. >> or is it a sale? you are selling of bad, region -- selling a bag, so it is sales tax. you will have to pay back. >> they do not want to have to educate the customer. once the customer agitated by the people at the counter. -- they want the people educated at the counter. >> they do not know. i want to give the commission the opportunity. it came up quickly. i do not think they had an opportunity to think it through, so it has been brought up to me by businesses saying we do not want to be in a position to educate the customer. th

as bus riders, we know that will impact us, impact our services, and it will impact the ability to fund the free muni for youth campaign. thank you so much for all your work on this. commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker. >> i am organizer with power. i am very grateful to you for having this audit so we can understand the budget and priorities of the mta. i wanted to talk a little bit about the fact that we were invited to this meeting recently where supervisor campos and mr. wiener were also present. we were asked to represent the community and with the community needs work. it was a difficult process, asking us to prioritize what we wanted for the region in terms of transit and housing. one of the things that one of the members of the community had mentioned was -- how can we prioritize when we do not know how much things will cost, right? it is like being asked whether we want a bicycle or whether we want a car and we do not know what that will cost. for us, we think that it is really important that we prioritize the free fastpass campaign. we know what it will cost. the proj

that will have a big impact. about 50% of our budget which will have an impact. the mayor, like last year, is focused on having a great deal of engagement and involvement from the community and nonprofit partners. he has already begun the process of meeting with bob crawford rather than the lives to get feedback into the budget process. at very high level, next fiscal year, predictions -- projections, on the revenue side, as the seven previous meetings, we continue to see local tax revenue improvement in all our tax revenue sources. that is being offset by the loss of on the ballot that we use in the current year budget, other one-time revenues, as well as reductions in state and federal funding. on the expenditure side, we continue to see increases in our personnel-related costs. we are assuming the loss of one time savings, reductions in our capital budget that were used in the current year to balance the budget. at the high level, good news on the revenue side of 75 loss of one time revenue. the big problem continues to be on the expenditure side. this is the

that it also impacts. and so the crowd control, i brought some pictures to reference. >> you can swing the mike to make it more comfortable for yourself. >> this is kind of foggy. this is the san bueno, one of the food trucks that has a permit there. right outside the wells for aerospace. you can -- wells fargo space. the krona blocks the sidewalk access. we have also seen where people with disabilities have trouble getting around this crowd which creates issues for us. it is a path of travel for us. that is sampson, this is bush in front of our building. this is directly in front of our building. we colored this curb white to make this a 15 minute parking because this was in front of the entryway. they have moved to this corner. it blocks the access. president goh: can erase the projector so that the fuller picture shows? is there anyway -- >> the other thing would be, this is a photo of the wall around the building on the corner where they park. this is, if you went out and look at it, this right here, w