where we have identified something as fully mitigated that is not being fully mitigated. what we have done is there is uncertainty as to the imply mentation of something we have identified as substantially significant even with air quality with the exception of reactive gases there is a high level of likelihood that you will see that's beyond the high likelihood that it will happen, but because we cannot assume that things that were not committed to, things that were not funded would happen, you know, the findings that we made were potentially significant because of that uncertainty. and so, you know, if the appellants want to make the case that there is some efficiency it would be limited to, we said something would happen, in the end there is uncertainty about it happening. i don't think that's the case in any of the issues that are being raised here. >> so that i understand your answer, you don't think that it's relevant for us to look at whether or not some of the city agencies will be able to actually pay for the mitigations that are being required of them? >> what i

where we have identified something as fully mitigated that is not being fully mitigated. what we have done

together with the races, this would be substantial if left on mitigated. the final set of mitigation proposed with the power project as the centerpiece will leave san francisco with cleaner air that it has today. while we are strongly supportive of this package of air quality mitigation measures, the pier 70 project may be subject to ongoing negotiations and we urge you to make your best effort to insure application of the pier 70 mitigation project and commit to an alternative mitigation contingency in the event the project cannot be completed. further, to protect our marine resources, we still ask for robust implementation of measures to ensure safe boating practices by businesses and a raiders and best practices of marine construction. we believe the best minimal sot mitigation techniques be employed during construction and we strongly recommend that the notice to boaters on the water and air traffic be conveyed to the mariners before their entry into the bay. and that it adequately conveys the impact. we also understand these concerns may have been add

about in particular litigation nal mitigation. we're going to find ways to power into to use clean energy and we're going to use as clean as possible generators where it's not possible. we're looking very closely at air quality. obviously the other mitt gages are equally important. >> park protection is important. i'm not going to belabor the point. i just wanted to be clear that our focus is on maintaining and protecting the natural and cultural resources in the park lands that brought this event here in this sort of a one of a kind area here in san francisco. we see that as key. we see a need to harmonize these with the marina green as one focus of attention. we also have national park service lands to something that we are preparing in addition to the plan called for a venue agreement that will allow us to really hopefully communicate at the end of this process and the end of the review process. what are the strategies and how we are managing things like this adaptive strategy across the parkland. so that's something that we ar

even with the mitigation in draft e.i.r. and due to some mitigation efforts, the significant conclusions remain unchanged in the final e.i.r. we did receive letters after the publication of the c.i.r.'s. they contain comments dated to be relevant to the c.n.r. dobblingment of the e.i.r. in general. the individuals and organizations were copied to planning staff and i'm just going to summarize what their concerns were because of the recent date of those letters we were not able to include them in the c.n.r. we did include a letter from the district and we have the response to that letter since it was a little more detailed than something i could read out at the meeting today. staff has reviewed the concerns and find them similar to comments already addressed in the c.n.r. documents as i will explain. the topics of concern this these liters we received through yesterday include request for continuance. the san francisco administrative code requires 10 days for review and we gave 14 days of review of the c.n.r.'s. concern that

second, it proposes insufficient mitigation measures. for example, the eir proposes fencing but does not identify where that will occur, how it will be installed, or what impacts may be arising from that itself. there is an notice to boaters brochure. while this may help, strong mitigation in the form of monitoring and an adaptive system is needed. i would like to emphasize that we're talking about the sentences, but, a sight of global importance or the shore birds and water birds, and the only way to do that is a brochure. finally, eir should include adaptive management. may i conclude? president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am president of the dolphin club and also an architect and resident of san francisco for 32 years. president chiu and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to address the issue with regard to both the dolphins club and others met has submitted a joint letter that is in support of the america's cup, but by virtue of some of our concerns, we knew our members who are oppos

that is what has to be mitigated. you can calculate how many engines you have to replace with clean diesel engines. how much to those cost? -- do those cost? you work backwards to get your mitigation fee. i think the city has a real vulnerability in terms of legality and the upcoming ceqa findings in february in rejecting that mitigation measures. one of the other issues that came up with air pollution is that there is a huge decrease in the predicted number of spectators between the draft e.r. 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

the mitigations even with some of the very good mitigation measures in the e.i.r., it will not prevent significant and avoidable and environmental impacts from occurring. so we plan to continue to engage in the public process as it moves forward to make sure that the project is implemented in a timely fashion and the other environmental documents being developed are finalized so that we can have an america's cup that is as clean and green as possible. thank you. >> thank you. john arnt. linda schaefer, mike savage. >> good evening. i'm john sindary, from the san francisco bomb pilot. >> we recommend them to move forward on the america's cup and the new cruise terminal. the cruise terminal is very important especially to the mary time commune -- maritime community. passengers will stimulate the local economy and increase the tax revenues and benefits for this city. the san francisco bob pilots support the america's cup and the new terminal. and the plan show a very attractive improvement for the waterfront. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners and staff. my name is diane bailey, i'

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 rowing club. -- the south end rowing club. i will not go through each and every one of them, but i will touch on a few that came up during testimony. aquatics park, the issue that the appellants raised is insufficient analysis of the impacts

the mitigation measures themselves are also packaged in mitigation monitoring and reporting program. that is the tabular document also included within your package. it specifically itemizes each of the mitigation measures as they were presented in the final eir and recites when they would be implemented and by what party. it is basically us and our contractors. 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 in

it has a recitation of all the impacts and mitigation measures and refers to a mitigation and monitoring program. it identifies the various alternatives that are in the final eir that are rejected in whole or in part and the reasons for those rejections, and the overriding considerations for approving this project, even though there are still some outstanding significant environmental impacts. with regard to the project before you, in the eir before you, the project varian had scaled down construction for the events. -- the project variant had scaled down construction. there was an alternative also included, which talked about reduced number of long-term development sites, and, the elimination of the long term marina in the rincon point open water basin. there was also an alternative for a reduced spectator program as well, which also covered the elimination of long-term marina development in the rincon point open water basin. the project we have proposed to you for approval is really sort of a blend of different components that come from that, but essentially

i think with negotiations with the regional board, we are there in terms of really good mitigation that will be precedent-setting for the port romanick going forward. some of the other key issues like increased boatyard position and increase sewage dumping from boats, we are going to have to work with the city down the road through the water traffic plan, and i have a good sense that that will work out, but the eir, despite the amount of time that the planning staff and the court stepped into it and the consultants, it is a not a legally defensible eir. the mitigation monitoring and reporting program is not legally dependable, and i recommend that you continue this hearing and give the appellants a week to settle their differences with the city, because the clouds are gathering, and you do not have a good eir to stand on, so i want to encourage your tuesday your action and really come to the conclusions of that you can mitigate impacts. i do want to emphasize the jumbotron and just say that that have got to go, and you got to come up with mitigation. thank you. president chiu: thank you

as far as noise mitigation, i have -- we have invested over $300,000 in noise mitigation measurements. we're trying to become a successful part of our neighborhood. and so what nicklaus was speaking of is there is a communication with ourselves and our neighbors. this is a thread with myself and one neighbor. he happens to be somewhat of a liaison between myself and the lmn. president newlin: thank you. nothing? i can't believe it. >> is a new year. -- is the new year. -- it is a new year. president newlin: commissioners, do you have questions? >> you have been having problems with people going out the back door and looks like a long history of problems with neighbors on the street. can i ask you how that is mitigated, what you do at night, what it is like when you close down, could you go through that with me? >> mostly it was being direct exits were being used during the day by contractors performing sound mitigation and there were employees that were using the rear exits in hopes of creating a safe escape from the nightclub to their respective vehicles. what we have done is we have

>> we have a terrific mitigation program. getting ready to launch. we have $22 million to provide cash incentives for people to mitigate their homes. so we got a lot of things going on. thank you. >> before you start, one thing i wanted to mention, i have a former colleague, lori johnson, not to put you on the spot. lori has done a lot of research on cobay and also on new orleans. i just want to know, if there's anything specific you have that could add to this discussion. you don't have to. i know i'm putting you on the spot. given the opportunity. all right. [laughter] ok. >> good morning. this question is a two-part question. probably would be best directed to barbara. one of the things is, as being an administrator of a church in the bay area, a vulnerable community, being part of the inner faith council, have you contacted or have m.o.u.'s with any other churches in which you could have health departments set up in there with emergency medical supplies or anything in case of an earthquake in the area so that we would already be a part of the cit

one of the issues raised is not necessarily fall mitigation, would be the wind impacts. have we modeled any changes in wind, having suffered the effects of working in some of the downtown corridor is where they become a wind tunnels. has anything been cited to not create any unintended consequences? >> we have not actually studied it as a project exercise, the wind elements out there. we are removing a substantial structure that, in some cases, blocks the wind. on the other hand, there still is a wind coverage from telegraph hill. so it has not been a design element. commissioner katz: because there's already a structure there with that would effectively have the impact is something new, i guess. finally, have we been working with the mta to come up with some solutions on some of the sporadic impacts on the transit system, such as the f-line. it seems that, maybe it is common sense, but it seems would scheduling, coming up with ways of we would advise them in advance when there might be increased need or use for the f- line. commissioner brandon: can you repeat that? com

and this is just applying the first two years of the short power project as mitigation. the project will have a useful life of up to 30 years. so it's an ongoing air quality benefit to the district 10 neighborhood. the port is going to be considering on february 14th zero waste policy sociated with large events. i really want to call the department of the environment staff who helped staff develop this proposed policy. and in sense for large events the ports would be banning the use of plastic bottles for water, plastic bags requiring compostable food service and prohibiting the release of balloons on port property. mike martin mentioned the notice to boaters which is going to have boaters understand the importance of cleaning the hulls of their boats to avoid species spread throughout the bed. we have major access and removal associated with this project. and i might want to return to this because i think it underscores the fact that this event is going to improve environmental conditions on the waterfront and it's going to leave legacy benefits in the form of public ac

that process specified release specific project and mitigation actions. i am happy to hear that when you look at this every five years, it will coincide with how you look at that expenditure plan. this is a nice complement that needs to happen. it is really interesting because in my day job, we have this challenge for cities all of the world like to get expertise to look at problems in their city. we send consultants in for free. the biggest problem around the globe in every single country you go too is looking at how you balance getting people out of their cars. they are clogging the streets and they're taking three hours to get into the city center. now looking how to provide better information. the trend around the world, everyone realizes he cannot build more roads. i think that this takes us a long way in that direction. in terms of a policy question that you raised for our feedback, i think this is a great idea to incentivize projects that go belie the4y parking maximum. i think that that is a strong opportunity. maybe there is a certain threshold o

he said there could be no mitigation for contrition. mitigation could be used to reduce sentences. they were very young at the time. i am sure the judge will come on to talk about this. david norris was 16. gary dobson was 17. they have shown no remorse. thethe judge said directly to gary dobson and david norris, " you lied to the court and you have shown no remorse." that's a key part of what the judge is taking into account. the judge has to think about what he can start with. on the other side of the balance, does he think about aggravating balance? they're both now in their mid 30's. the judge said he had to sentence them as they were at the time. we're not talking about a situation where 30-something gary dobson and david norris ran into the road and stabbed a teenager. we're talking about a 16 and 17- year-old at the time. the surveillance tapes were taken in december 1994. he said, "you were not innocent teenagers. you worked implicitly racist -- you were to implicitly racist." matt is in court and tweeting. gary dobson is staring straight ahead. he has insisted all along th

we'll mitigate the loss of the c-27. i'm not sure we'll be able to completely mitigate it, but that will help as we deploy. >> is that part of the delay? >> general, do you feel that the army is shouldering the bulk of the burden of this -- these defense budge cuts? when we look on paper, it sure looks like you're taking the biggest hit. and also, how did you come up with the number 490? is that budget based? what were the considerations? >> sure. first, i really want to be very clear. i believe the army route more than anybody else as we got involved in iraq and afghanistan and that growth was very specific because we were worried about the tempo of our soldiers and units. we grew the army in order to meet our commitments in iraq and afghanistan. so i think it's -- i'm comfortable now that in fact our -- we're done with iraq. commit sment coming down in afghanistan that we can now do this. i don't see it as we're bearing the burden. we're making a correction as what we see out there in terms of threat. what i look at is

in terms of the mitigation measures themselves, those actually do not change. the mitigation monitoring reporter program in your package now that was posted on the web site -- all of those measures would still ride with this revised project. the only thing that changes is the title block on the first page -- it refers to a project variant. with that, i am going to sit down and introduce jonathan to take you to the next phase of the presentation. thank you. >> thank you, diane. i am from planning and development of the port. it is my privilege to try to negotiate very quickly a set of agreements that matched all the criteria that diane just talked about. i will try to walk you through the approval process. the approval before you today describes the major documents that are in play, and then talk about future approval that the documents will need for them to become effective. we are here to approve, after consideration and approval for ceqa findings any mitigation monitoring program for the eir that was completed and certified last night, we will seek your appro

mitigation measures also approved. the sfpuc approved the transaction in their commission meeting on october 25, 2011, and now before you for final approval. happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. in terms of the puc representative, anything that you would add? thank you. mr. updike, in terms of the lease negotiations, the core rate is roughly $12,500 a year in terms of fair market value, based and where is located, probably higher than what about the would be -- market? >> yes, according to one appraisal report, the rate could be considered slightly lower. we feel comfortable where we are at. certainly, no less than fair market rental values. supervisor chu: the puc has three options to adjust the rest? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: we cannot have a budget analyst report for this. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to send item 5 forward with recommendations. without objection. please call item 6, 7, and eight

this is about the adequacy of the eir in terms of implementing these mitigation measures. you are assigning responsibility for those measures and whether that goes to the city, that starts to delineate where they're going to be paid for. in reality, we would like to bring that forward to you. the port has moved ahead on approving one piece of this project. i think we are interested in moving that board as quickly as we can. we ask this hearing of ahead with upholding the decision. we will be with you to talk about the approval. supervisor campos: one of the concerns i have was that there is a sense, the way it was articulated, that the dda is sufficient. i do not know that is the case. to the extent there is an implication of those terms, i think that is relevant. supervisor farrell: i want to say thank you to the event authority for your willingness regarding the jumbotron. for a lot of the neighbors and president chiu and i, it is a big deal for the neighbors and the clubs. to me, it is a testament to the spirit of cooperation i have seen in my neighborhood. we have a lo

they propose to mitigate that. i am going to point out that in all of their years of operating in san francisco, they have not reached close to 50% transit share. they are at 29% of employees to take transit. even with giving people $100 to take public transit, they cannot get 50% of employees out of their cars. we have 1600 employees everyday driving in automobiles to van ness and puree. -- geary. they will seek parking, as they are in campuses, which is creating tremendous problems as is. sending you need is not enough. there has to be incentives to find new name. -- to find muni -- to fund muni. 50% of employees come from out of the city. we have an ecological environmental disaster at the corner, which is not mitigated by anything we see before you. >> thank you, mrs. morgan. are there any staffers who are here? i would like the mta to respond to any statistics. i think these are disconcerting. >> we will make sure to relay the question and get an answer back. >> thank you. >> i am joanne, a member of the commu