it is very subjective whether this project eir -- appellants are climbing in reality it is a program eir. i need more specifics about how you would distinguish that what is being considered has adequate analysis, as supervisor mercury mentioned. the appellant highlights there was not sufficient analysis to constitute a project-level review. that is on page 11. they go on to mention it did not have the details necessary to assess, let alone mitigate, project-level impacts. that is on page 12. they conclude the plan was only conceptual, or could be changed in the future, and that the project level details for the development do not presently exists. they go on to explain that. could you give us more examples of why you are absolutely sure that this is a project eir and not a program eir? >> i would like to begin by saying we provide a full, comprehensive response to those issues in our response. >> >> -- supervisor mar: if you could summarize those, that would be helpful for me. >> in general, we have provided enough information at a project level to be able to fully describe what the impa

all of these indications indicate that this is only a program eir. it cannot be certified as a document. the difference is significant. this approves a project-level eir. no challenges within 830-day period. that eir would be resumed by a lot to resume a project level analysis. the effect of that is a much higher bar for the city to require environmental review of new information that may come forward about details. instead of having a tiered environment to review process, the only time it would be required is if ceqa's higher bar is presented. all of this is reflected in the document that staff has been presented. all of the letters have been cemented by the fire department, san francisco municipal transit authority, the united states coast guard. they all demonstrate that none of them understand the project level of this redevelopment, the special use district project. another problem is that the product description they have been given is fundamentally an unstable. the fundamental legislation that allows the transfers of entitlement and trust from

eir. to talk about whether it is a program is to change the subject. does it contain enough information to make the requirements? he talked about the description of the project. it is detailed. a consists of 84 pages in the draft eir of the figures in renderings. this is based on specific design and zoning guidelines. it is an unusual amount of detail. if the action is a read-azaan it must be prepared. that is not is a re-zone must be prepared. if not, that is -- this project description does that. the dimensions that it includes the designed for the developments. ththe proposed project establiss a zoning and design rules and guidelines to be applied to specific buildings. these are very specific. there is nothing unusual about doing a project specific analysis. the first district court of appeals issued the oakland heritage alliance. they have a similar approval. they will come forward. this approach has been recognized. there is an argument that the entitlements are too vague. there has been some mention of the height. this is a good example of why a

there is a claim that is actually a program to eir. it will be a fix project to analyze. we disagree. this is comparable to the discussion of free circulation. the fact that they do of god does that mean that -- that they do that does not mean it is a response to the analysis. this is appropriate. there are certain aspects that provide a measure of flexibility. these are simply variations. all these things are designed to provide flexibility. they are very clear about what the variants are. flexibility is not instability. some documents were submitted. there is an attachment. it consists of a memorandum. they stated that the assumptions are incorrect and inadequate. this memo appears to confuse the district financing. it is confusing with infrastructure financing. it is just like the redevelopment plan. it appears to pervade the memorandum. we respectfully disagree. he does provide his own take on what appropriate valuations are and what assumption should be. i am not an economist. i will not take that on. i will say we have abundant evidence. it supports the economic ana

since of last reported on the program, we have certified two eir's on two of our key projects. we have advertised at three contracts including very important contracts including calaveras and a very important part of the eastern pipeline system. we have advocated construction on six large projects including a water treatment plant, the western segment of the san joaquin county pipeline system, and the crystal springs pipeline replacement project. we completed construction on not towwo, but 3 project since we close the agenda today. we completed construction on two contracts. one achievement is the connection of the new crystal springs bypass tunnel to the system. this was early in the reporting quarter. it required one of the most risky and challenging shutdowns of the entire program. the water enterprise deserves a lot of kudos to pull this off. we have completed 52 of the 108 shutdowns. on march 11, we started tunneling through the new tunnel. that was a major milestone. another milestone was the delivery to our project sites. they started rising in the last few weeks. this w

eir. to talk about whether it is a program is to change the subject. does it contain enough information to make the requirements? he talked about the description of the project. it is detailed. a consists of 84 pages in the draft eir of the figures in renderings. this is based on specific design and zoning guidelines.

the urban water management plan i believe is word for word from the 2007 draft eir for the water system improvement program. it would be great if there was an update on that or you left it out altogether because it is kind of embarrassing. thank you. >> 3 comments. one, appreciate staff's work with us during the preparation of the document, incorporating changes toward the end, and also even this morning. ours was one of the comments that came in after 5:00 last night, and your staff was nice enough to incorporate several of those. we appreciate that. one item to note -- i am surprised that the prior speakers did not mention it -- in terms of drought cutbacks, it shows that san franciscans will be able to get by with a 2% reduction during a significant drought. our experience has been in the past with the bay area is in crisis, everybody gets a little bit. this is mandatory drought. i suspect voluntary rationing would be called for in any event, but it might be worth noting, at least in a future plan. finally, with respect to questions and comments, i am not an attorney. i am not going to try to be an atto

under ceqa, a program is feasible if it achieves most of the objectives. one, the eirmentions a continuing -- continues building wall. this is not a well-known design issue. it is an opinion. one to argue that having the green state parcel -- green state -- greenscape parcel -- tow, the eir said it would not be visually supportive to the library. this is not a fundamental project objective and is it is a simple matter of design -- and is a simple matter of design. the eir represents an unwelcome massive block. obviously drawn to massive hi. thank you. president chiu: -- >> any others? seeing none, this hearing is closed. president chiuy? president chiu: i want to thank everyone for the many, many years of conversations we have had about the north beach library. regardless if you support it, you of helped to make a better one. i also want to thank everyone, including the planning office and dpw. the very first meeting i held after being elected was about a north beach library, and we have, a long way, but from my perspective, i think we need to move forward. the north b

under ceqa, a program is feasible if it achieves most of the objectives. one, the eirmentions a continuing -- continues building wall. this is not a well-known design issue. it is an opinion. one to argue that having the green state parcel -- green state -- gree

eir is inadequate for failing to consider its feasibility. written comments requesting consideration received inadequate response. strange objectives relating to the program division and the more level functions are easily solve the design details or unrelated to project objectives. it will level the floors of the existing library and make an elevator to make it accessible. this option would meet the stated objectives and avoid the significant adverse impact to the resources. as a potentially feasible alternative to demolition, we feel that a -- is a bonafide alternative. this can be made accessible and safe as well as be the most incrementally green option. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i have not figured out how to do this. this is the same drawing as before. i have lived in north beach for 49 years. this is inadequate and should be revised and it will include new space on the triangle. this is well illustrated. i hope that you can understand this. it was pretty bleary on the back. i have sent most of you seven documents. this would be consistent with the intent with a park or garden which will celebrate this parcel of land which is one in a series of

eir views more fully expressed. in massachusetts we have a referendum program. if you do not like something in a state, it can be put on a refereum and we can change it. states of the place for those issues that touch us most directly and i cannot think of anything that touches us as directly as the education of our children. i like what we have in my state. a statewide series of academic curriculum. the kids take a test every year to see what they're doing. you cannot graduate unless the best the test and i think it is working pretty well. i will tell you one thing, if barack obama wted to impose that on the nation, but would fight that to the nth degree. the federal government does not have the right to take over ste and local governments. it is against the constitution and it is not right for america. so, i am with you. [applause] you know what this is about, by the way. this is about millions and millions of dollars that go into the obama campaign from a national teachers' unions. the bosses of those unions want to get their hands on education at the nationa