we don't see this as a mitigation for direct construction. the result will be in net loss of habitat. the private land is in risk of developing. this is habitat that would not go away otherwise. >> i swung to be clear that you pay to million dollars. >> this is approximately $50 million for the bond funding. if you remember, this acquisition is private land and it goes into conservatorship in the incremental benefit. that is the thing that we're looking at, not litigation. this is required mitigation, this is a permanent requirement. it is a requirement for our project to go forward. where we cannot, we have to go out and acquire those new right of ways. this is the approach we have taken to mitigate for our construction project. i understand there is a lot that goes into this. each project has all of these little mitigation measures to. this is not just a collection of different improvements to it an ecological landscape approach to benefit the environment. >> i cannot understand from that presentation apparently, a perpetual maturing will b

therefore, mitigation was not required. the part of the project is subject to review and approval by the historic presentation -- preservation commission, which uses the standards for their review and approval, which is why this mitigation was removed for this portion of the project. president miguel: thank you for the explanation. i will have additional comments, but before i do, is there anyone from the project sponsor's side that can set aside the rumors that have been appearing in the press regarding the future of the tonga room, just to get that off the table? >> my name is susan, and i represent the owners of the fairmont project. we do have a presentation for you a little bit later that i think we get to make. in that, we will address the tonga room. committed to trying to find a solution for the tonga that would allow it to thrive in a place where it could thrive. that is not at the fairmont hotel. they have entered into the letter of intent with a nightclub operator, as described by mr. bloch accurately, to take al

eir fails to adequately mitigate construction related issues. it fails to adequately address loading issues and traffic construction into this or that -- already congested neighborhood. it fails to address newly increased traffic and the increase schedules of construction on unscheduled subway and cable car lines that will be coming in 2011. the most glaring failure, however, is the lack of credible alternatives. focusing on the tonga room is not appropriate. is the knob hill historic district even a greater cultural district not only to san francisco but to millions of visitors from around the world? the budget sponsor has an opportunity to correct the mistake made with the 1961 tower and restore the neighborhood to its original splendor. instead, we are given a project that does nothing to realize this goal with no substantive alternatives. the sponsor has given no consideration to the people of nob hill, and we therefore request that this eir should not be certified. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is michael barrett. i have been a resi

through ceq aa and the permits, it mitigates impact. for wsip, we have come up with an innovative idea to add benefits and accomplish beneficial environmental planning. we are adding benefits to the habitat restoration. it is a way of consolidating so that instead of being scattered, they are in combined ecological areas that really provide greater benefits. today, we would like to concentrate on the construction compliance program and by regional -- sorry. regional habitat restoration. we will come back to you another time to present the impact avoidance measures and how we accomplished that process. the environmental construction management program -- ok. the environmental construction management program was prepared and is managed by our environmental construction management manager. she has been doing this for 20 years, many utilities programs for both water, electrical, and natural gas programs. we brought her in in june of 2008. we're very proud of it as it is unique for the city and for public utilities in california. she works c

it specifically provided that it would implement mitigation measure mcp1a. 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 loo

this will be mitigated by the department's suggestions. having this massive the scale building will serve to enhance the size and further downplayed the historic nature of our street. this project will tower three blocks -- 3 stores higher than the other buildings. this ignores the facts and picks and chooses what context to use to assess the buildings appropriateness. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i have lived in the neighborhood since 1979. we finally had a discussion last tuesday to know the rationale of the department. it seemed obvious to us that the entire block of valencia's street is lined with the victorian and edwardian buildings. we were kind of alarm that to the explanation. this is the block. this has many intact buildings. the southern end it is mostly edwardian and 1920's. this sort of forms and cluster. this is the banquette castro and 18th. -- this is the bank at castro and 18th. this is very popular but a little bit new york but still quite old.

this is a premier of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeremy bettis, environmental analysis section. the item is the appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and i appear you before this item and the proposed project at 1050 valencia street in the context as the it interfaces with properties on hill street and the historic district and this analysis has been provided within the amended mitigated negative declaration which you will find in your packets. it sheds additional light on the historic district settings, origins and telling the history of san francisco and provides an additional appraisal of the pr posed project and whether the introduction would materially impair neighbors historic resources within the district if department's conclusions remain unchanged. the project as proposed would not relate in a significant impact to an historic resource. again, to recap, the 3,300 square foot project site at the southwest corner of valencia and hill streets is not located within any potential or established historic distri

we have consolidated the mitigation requirements and the budget. the projected cost is $54 million. 26 million or half is for construction. the show's the upper left hand side, the $8 million for the specialized account. this is for land acquisition. this is what we have budgeted. there are five-year and 10-year maturing requirements. we are preparing 11 contracts. this is because the different types of habitat, different timing and location and we will return for approval of two professional service contracts. two contracts to collect fees and use local genetic materials suited for the watershed. others include construction contracts and one for real estate services. we are implementing 3 goat rock as one of the sites. we are asking for the commission approval on the next item to find the habitat at efficient wildlife refuge. we're hoping to seek approval including the open space in the bay and one in alameda county. we proceeded with some habitat purchases assisted with the approval of the project. the special account which will be used to fund c

as part of an effort to mitigate regional traffic and transit-related impacts related to nonresident employment, planning code section 164 requires certain downtown buildings to also implement a local employment program designed to determine the number of -- and nature of jobs that will become available as a result of added downtown office development, to publicize to san francisco residents the availability of those jobs, to work with local schools and job training programs to create a labor pool of san francisco residents qualified to obtain jobs created by the downtown office development. to work with employers in the building to encourage hiring of qualified san francisco residents and to carry out other activities determined by department of city planning or its designee to be reasonable and appropriate in meeting the purpose of this requirement. commissioners, your packets include two resolutions. the first would authorize tmasf to continue providing brokerage services pursuant to planning code section 163 for transportation management. the second would authorize tmasf to forma

staff prepared a mitigated negative declaration for the project, which is included in the packet for this item as attachment two. the n.n.d., the draft was published on july 28 and was available for public comment until august 17. the final was published on september 18. that relates to the first item before you, the ceqa findings. the process to legislate and adopt a better streets plan has already been initiated. on september 21, the mayor introduced an ordinance, actually two ordinances at the board of supervisors, one that would amend the administrative code, planning code, public works code relating to the better streets plan and the other relating to amending the general plan. and subsequently at the hearing here at the planning commission on october 7, you voted to initial the general plan amendment. so to go a little more into the three items before you today, the first item is a motion to adopt ceqa findings including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, the mmrp, which is shown in attachment three and per exhibit a of that draft motion to adopt ceqa findings whi

project, adopt the required2sms california environmental finding including the considerations and mitigationd a monitoring and reporting program, and authorizing the general manager to implement program subject to supervisors approval where required including the following action. a, negotiate the agreement with the cities and towns with respect to the construction activities in each jurisdiction. $qtb, negotiate and obtain frome department of transportation from the cities and counties and pacific gas and electric company real-estate licenses, other permits or agreements with respect to project construction and improvement of the entities. they will obtain any lease or agreement necessary and negotiate with owners or imn the sfpuc right-of-way and other project-related agreements as necessary. necessary. s/(to/içm zobtain permits and approvals or enter into agreements with state, federal, and local governments not limited to caltrans, army corps of engineers, u.s. fish and wildlife marine fisheries service, the california department of game, the water control board, the sanitary district, a

measure primarily because there are better more feasible mitigation measures to address these impacts. so a copy of the letter was placed in the file. there were no changes considered necessary in response to this letter. a second letter was also received last night and this morning by me from the bay area water supply and conservation area supply. they propose that the fisheries associated with the variance would impact their water supply and the ability of the san francisco public utilities commission to meet it's level of service goals originally established in the adopted water system improvement program. the comment and responses document has addressed this issue on cnr pages 13-20. the analysis concluded no new environmental impacts and there are no new mitigation measures associated with the project variance. additionally, the project points out that in the event an actual water supply shortfall materializes before 201 , the commission would address that shortfall. complete note however that the range of water supply options that could be pursued by the san francisco public uti

you will assign the responsibility to rec and park for the mitigation measures that are contained in the agreement that we signed with north coast. the recreation and parks department, they would be paying the north coast county water district lowered costs compared to the capital component for that. >> recreation and parks is find the water not from us but from north coast? >> they pay a charge for existing water. they would basically be paying the constant and a charge for the water that is being generated. >> we are basically not part of the deal? >> we providing money for the construction of the recycled water project that it would be delivered by the -- water district. >> there is no direct offset. >> we consider these a demand because our water is going there. >> ok. >> so there would be an offset. >> yes. this would be about 3 million gallons a year or about 80,000 gallons per day >> right now, we are providing water and an agreement to north coast. the recycle water would be substituted for that. since the water would not be ours, there would be no reason for that agreement w

i can tell you that the lack of parking is mitigated by public transportation is not true. my bike is mine primary source of transportation but i also have a car. on weekends and -- i don't know who we are kidding by saying that transportation is great. there is already more demand for parking. there is a seven-year wait list for a monthly spot. i disagree with the planning department's analysis of the situation and i think that it needs more scientific and unbiased assessment. thank you. >> . >> good afternoon. i've been a resident of san francisco for 40 years. several years ago i had an accident on my bike that left me with a metal plate. the nearest handicapped parking a block away, this proposed 16 units, five story monster will be run across the street from me. parking is hardly a problem. between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., people are coming on or into the neighborhood, parking is almost impossible. this building to select other large multipurpose buildings does not have any parking. it will only increase congestion and noise as more cars from the neighborhood looking

springs dam improvement project variants, adopt the required california findings including the mitigation reporting program and authorize the general manager to implement the project in compliance with the charter and applicable law, subject to the board of supervisors approval where required. it includes the following. obtain from caltrans and san mateo county permits for temporary construction activity. exercise any public commission right under any lease or permit as necessary. in the sheet and execute with owners of properties -- negotiate and execute with owners of properties on the right of way. these include other project related agreements as necessary for the project. obtain permits and approvals from regulatory agencies including the state preservation office, u.s. fish and game, u.s. fish and wildlife service, the fisheries service, the california department of fish and game, the california water control board, the bay area management district, and california department of transportation. negotiate and execute real estate agreements, financial assurances, and conservation easem

agreements and licenses, agreements, and issuances related to the city right-of-way rights and habitat mitigation sites as!p necessary for the project. finally, notwithstanding the authority granted to the general manager by this resolution, the general manager is not authorized to dispose of real property in any managener withot approval. implementation and action will include construction bids, there will be commission approval to award contracts. >> good morning, commissioner. special meeting. is significant thing for us seeking approval. i want to give a quick overview. the project spans 19 miles from the crystal springs dam to the university amount reservoir in the city. i think you got a copy of the amount i have here. the 19 miles are shown on the blue line. this is a pipeline built in the early 1900's. we are going to be rehabilitating approximately five of the 19 miles. in some areas, we will be replacing the line. in other areas, we will be sliplining to minimize traffic impact. as part of the project, we will also be retrofitting the pier bridges at different locations. we are also goi

the central police district regularly puts out an unprecedented number of police and to mitigate the problems associated with over intensifying. the conditional use requirement is in place because of the saturation of similarly licensed bars and clubs. a bona fide eating place, not a bar or a club. the difference is the obligation to remain primarily a bonafide food service restaurant. there is a correlation of clubs and bars to violence, that is different than restaurants. adding carry a key -- karaoke and ppol -- pool tables. they need the change -- they made the change on an ad hoc situation. the neighborhood plot defined by six blocks of residential businesses mixed together with housing, approximately 4200 people. the recommend 40 establishments where there are currently 71, -- 14 establishments where there are currently 71. again, the chief asks that you reject the permit. president chiu: could you talk to us for a moment about whether the density of licenses leads to a alcohol-related, public safety issues, and whether it also requires an additional increase in police presence

springs dam improvement project variants, adopt the required california findings including the mitigationreporting program and authorize the general manager to implement the project in compliance with the charter and applicable law, subject to the board of supervisors approval where required. it includes the following. obtain from caltrans and san mateo county permits for temporary construction activity. exercise any public commission right under any lease or permit as necessary. in the sheet and execute with owners of properties

the staff is working with future software updates for increase improvements and we will mitigate fair evasion techniques. thank you for the time for the brief. i have staff that was part of the program. we'd be happy to answer any questions. >> two clarifications. the machines with the single-use tickets, are they getting change? it wasn't doing change, but this was several weeks ago. >> yes. >> on the front, i don't get the magnetic reader. there is a swipe area. >> that's the transition. we have to run both systems. >> for the old fast-pass? >> all products are not converted yet. we have a staged conversion and there is magnetic fair media out there. >> after we transitioned, the swipe will be gone. it won't be used. will it be off the fairgate? >> the current plan is to remove the pieces of equipment. we will need to work through policy to determine when we remove those. >> it does confuse -- i see people trying to swipe their clipper card. >> thank you. >> anyone else? >> one last item, to announce. on october 20, the mta will hold an entrance conference for part two of the limite