we are not just looking for mitigating the impact of the removal. i understand some of the trees need to come out. a couple really are in bad shape. what we really would like to see is a phased removal so they are not all taken out at once, and one that can mitigate some of the impacts of the removal. one of the things i have seen all over the city is the green streets program that has been going on. we would really like to see not just coming in and removing all the trees at once, but mitigating it with a phased removal in combination with some more green sidewalk streetscape in. the sidewalks are very wide, so there is room to do -- a well. -- oh well. this is not beautiful, but these are some of the pictures i got off the streets of san francisco where they have done green scaping. there is a lot of runoff going down the street because we are on a hill. i think that would also help with storm water pollution medication. -- mitigation. i want to point out that mitigating these impacts and trying to reduce the effect on the neighborhood is consiste

one of my concerns is the mitigation. l development, we have three others going on literally within 200 feet of my window. i will be living in dust for the next five years. they will probably stagger these developments out. we will live in a construction zone with trucks coming at whatever time. not only will i be living in the building but after the whole foods is built, then you have the trucks and the parking. if that st., i know it will affect my life and i like the idea that you will come back in a year after the store opens and check on whole foods, because believe me, we have heard that the parking and the killing up for that start this -- for the store is sometimes really horrible. to keep them honest, i would like you to do this a year later to check. the size of the store is the next thing. we have a lot of small stores, i think that they will be impacted by this. if you are going to give this project and go, at least limit the size of the store so it does not overwhelm everything in this neighborhood. we all fr

those of the main questions that i have except as someone would like to speak a little bit to mitigation measures for traffic as far as the amount of parking, there was some talk about having a valet. perhaps management as you do with trader joe's on masonic. >> i would add that if you look at the mitigation condition that is proposed, this is proposed as a tool kit because there are ballets included as one of the potential mitigation measures and there is a number of measures that is suggested but the mandate under that condition is to the extent that there is a make sure that things are working correctly. thank you. >> in closing, i think that this is a very very good project and i think that this is a wonderful land use, particularly when we contrast this to 30 or 40 years ago. of course, that was a different time and that is where things should be. parking is underneath and we were utilizing the space very efficiently. so, i think it is good. things can be worked out that were brought up the we will see what the other commissioners have to say. >> i think that this is a good project,

i think the report -- at there are issues and certain measures might be implemented to mitigate some of the impacts of that situation if it gets really out of hand. i am inclined to go on with the measures that are drafted here. >> i would like a clarification on the recycling center. >> ok. >> this is a notification to the tenants. >> thank you. >> i was just going to say that i am a counsel to the project sponsor and we would be happy to accept a condition that says that f any of our lease agreements -- we will provide notice to the fact that their science center is located wherever it is located and it is a recycling center. >> >> commissioner, -- >> i would like to commend to the product groups for the extensive community outreach and working with all the various neighborhood groups. obviously, you cannot get 100% consensus but you did a great job of being out there and modifying your project and even making a good-faith effort because he could not do the on site. i would like to commend you in this regard and this is what we ask a lot of developers to do and he really went out t

the question is, what, in fact, is a mitigation of an impact of development? is that a legitimate use to underground existing wires? i do not oppose undergrounding, i think it is great. it should happen everywhere, but is that an appropriate use, especially when the library is hurting for operating funds and cannot provide service in the fifth district while park branch is closed? that deprives the community a years of service. the other issue is what is happening with the money. can the developers pay it? what is happening with page 1-1. the public library is intending to use $2 million in a proposed ordinance to reimburse their preservation fund, which will then be we appropriated to other projects. so, in other words, it looks like a raid on library preservation funds one way or another to put money that is normally for other operations -- supervisor avalos: thank you. is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment? >> my name is fran martin. we are the organization that instituted this fee in the first place. we asked for infrastructure fu

pending the mitigation agreement, being able to weigh in on the final design. we are looking to be a partner on this project. this will be a major impact on union square. >> have you been involved in reviewing the additional design? >> i came in at the point of the revised design. >> i think they have made some real improvements. >> thank you. >> i continue to believe that this is a bad project for the mta and for the city. this is being done after the conclusion of the environment to review. i understand that there is concerns about the revenue which is subject to further negotiations. there is not uniform support in the city in chinatown or elsewhere in this city. i want this to be made clear. >> your opposition is from the ballpark all the way into chinatown. >> i am opposed to the entire project. i hope that you know that they have not got the final federal commitment. there is $920 million here hoping to get. there is only three months left to get the money. i think it is foolish to have further expenditures. this list of what could be extended to fisherma

i think the mitigation effort will be successful. i wish that it happened last march so we didn't have to go on with this. and the one concern i do have is the easterly door on the facade. when greg originally pr

i feel like there has not been a coordinated effort at mitigation and with any kind of replacement. lastly, on the issue of coordinating with the community, that is in the order for the hearing officer. i am curious when they intend to coordinate with us if they are intending to take the trees out in january. they have not responded to any request to have a meeting on this issue. >> ms. short? >> i do not think i have too much more to say since the director's order does not specifically say we were meant to replace a chinese elm. it said we should identify with the neighbors a tree that is consistent with city standards. there is no point in coordinating with the neighbors if the trees are not coming out. we're waiting on an outcome from this hearing. i do not have the authority to overrule a department order unilaterally. the meeting before this hearing would not have a sense. but we would be coordinating with them if the board grants removal of the trees. i think the last thing i would say is even the arborist report from the appellant did not recommend that anything could be miti

the predisaster mitigation program was created by the disaster mitigation act of 2000. as a pilot program to study the effects and effectiveness of mitigation of those grants given to communities before a disaster may strike. prior to the creation of the predisaster mitigation program, hazard mitigation primarily occurred after a disaster. through fema's hazard mitt gration grant program. we know that every disaster costs us a lot of money. and obviously more money and many times human life. it damages homes, businesses, and infrastructure and again potentially loss of life. mitigation measures have been shown, madam speaker, to really to be very effective in mitigating the damage that occurs during a storm and frankly also in saving lives which is we would all agree more important. in fact, the investments we make in mitigation actually saves taxpayer dollars. i think that merits -- that deserves being repeated. it actually saves the taxpayer money. both the c.b.o., congressional budget office, and the national institute of building science have determined that for eve

we should think about what we can do to mitigate that going forward. the taxpayers are on the hook if these big firms, which are hard to manage, get into trouble again. we do not want that situation. i do not think anybody in either party in congress was that situation. we have to think up a better way to mitigate that going forward. . . bobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobo and each meetingbobo wboas abou whether we were going to nudge interest rates up or down a little bit, then i think our communication strategy would probably be fine for that. but since we're in such an unusual situation, it looks like we're going to be here for a while, we probably need to think about ways to more effectively way to communicate all these, we're at the zero bound, we've got special programs that we're still operating, and we have to somehow get these ideas and get the understanding of these ideas out to the general public and let the debate flow. i'm happy to let everyone tell us what they think. and they do. but i think that's a health st. louis for make nake today. th

program which is the pre-disaster mitigation program where each jurisdiction is allowed $2 million or $3 million per project per-year. so they are prioritized for this but we have in the submitted the application yet. commissioner walker: do we need a mandatory program -- it is not need to be? >> no, just prioritize that project and submit. president murphy: any further public comments? seeing none. commissioners? commissioner walker? commissioner walker: i want to thank a.t.c., capss, mrs. seek and the work that she has done. this is a vital step we have taken forward with the bold cooperation of the commission, i'm going to make a motion to support the extension of the capss as requested, the capps contract as requested. as it was stated, there is the report which is important, and i think that we've put enough urgency under this issue to get some closure on some of these reports. but now it is up to us. we have the information. we have a broad group across all stakeholder groups that came together to talk about this issue, to be able to identify where we are at as a city, what step

in the know of but we have a conditional approval that comes to you and present to you the final mitigation package. >> fine, let's do that. >> i have concerns about this. we need to come up with some answers before we do this and to not act upon this today. i cannot do this today until we get the answers for them. we need to have a meeting for them. >> it sounds like they will come back to us. we have had public testimony. can we entertain a motion? >> this is the motion that you are looking at. >> this is conditioned upon bringing the mitigation package back to us. >> emotion on what he said. >> is there a second? >> moved and seconded. unanimous, thank you. >> we are on item number 10, doral drive project. -- doyle drive project. and >> good afternoon. the item before you is a discussion and possible action to create 8 parking lot for approximately 23 stations. this is the eastern portion of the yacht club for yacht club users. the research for camelot is owned by the presidio and it has historically been used for parking in the vicinity of the palace for fine arts. this is for visitors

as many of you know, we have ceqa mitigation lists. here, we have those ceqa mitigations baked into the agreemtn al -- agreement that are above and beyond ceqa. contingencies for community improvement. you saw the light rail itself is the entire proposal that is part of this package. a voluntary benefit that we have negotiated with the cooperation of the developer. these are substantial changes, and we have to go through a process. we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over it. in the event at the intersection improvement or a major improvement that requires a third-party approval goes south. the developer may ask for an extension of time to pursue that improvement, ask for a substitute community improvement that is equal to the credit that that improvement otherwise would have satisfied, or they may ask for an alternative community improvement where we sit down and design an alternate improvement to provide the same relief or same services that the original was to provide. we end up in a situation where we preserve the benefit of the

that is 20% of the mitigation that we need to offset 250 spaces that

we ask that you hold this decision to publish a mitigated declaration. this package contains a draft notice of that effect. the planning commission does not restrict the ability to tell if the proposed project designs are appropriate for the neighborhood. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. members of the project team are here to answer any other questions that you may have. thank you. >> this is the appellant. this is not on the project itself, this is -- this is not on the project itself. this is simply on the mitigated issues. is the person who is appealing the pmd here? alright. i have one speaker card. ian lewis. >> thank you. ian lewis, hotel workers union. we appealed this pmd for the density of its use. we have withdrawn this. the city is under the city hospitality industry. the greatest problem is the push to pull tourist hotel unites out of circulation. given that this project, if approved, would be one of four hotel projects we are aware of. and the only one i'm aware of of going under construction. we have withdrawn

the project sponsor has had over 12 months to mitigate this problem and has been unable to do so. as such, the department is recommending that the outdoor smoking patio be enclosed or eliminated. based on recent conversations, the project sponsor's representative, it is staff's understanding that the project sponsor may be willing to enclose the front smoking patio and apply for the necessary permits to relocate the smoking patio to an unused room on the subject property that is not currently part of the bar. the proposed enclosure is consistent with the department's request of modification and the department's priority here is to gain compliance and abate the violation as soon as possible. the department has received support for the conditional use modification from the devose triangle neighborhood association, the eureka valley association, and three other neighbors. the department has not received any opposition. i am also joined here today by jay connor, planning enforcement staff, who managed the violations for trigger, chris hahn, manager of the code enforcement team, and a

the eir, they were supposed to mitigate this with shuttle parking from the main parade ground. there is still another lot out there. they are still refusing. and they are holding this city hostage once again to issues that impact us. there is another section that i have known for 10 years and want to change the parking over at chestnut and lion. take the bus restrictions off. if you vote on this, your being part of that bigger story. i really think you should continue in even past the first of the year because there is a lot of information that is coming out momentarily. did you know the planning department has not passed this on environmental? i bet you did not know that. there are lots of things you are being told that i think you should continue this until after the first of the year. we are willing to take the brunt. i don't understand why you are determined to do this. i heard about this lot being taken to a parking lot over 12 years ago. the next thing we know, they want the trees torn down. this was and still is possibly a spotted owl nesting ground. there are redwoods.