i have reviewed the e.r. -- the eir. i think the city has done a great job and i recommend approval of the ceqa. >> my name is justin. i worked with tishman and wakefield brokerage firm in san francisco. i am a fifth generation san franciscan. my great grandfather was a small business owner, as well as my grandfather. we represent hertz corporation, thompson reuters, and others. there has been a dearth of large block space in san francisco. the developments currently on tap are not sufficient to house some of these firms. you saw the benefits of a firm staying in san francisco. over 2000 jobs are going to be for san franciscans and the bay area. it is critical that we provide large blocks of space for these tenants to stay in san francisco to draw from the technology and social media sectors. it is very exciting for our economy and the city of san francisco. i am in support of the certified eir and against the appeal that has been filed. thank you. >> michael karioke, san francisco building. this is exactly the sort of pr

this is an appeal of the eir, not the project. but we are here to talk about today is the actual adequacy of the eir, and not the project itself, which has not been appealed. we looked at land-use compatibility, traffic, shadows. this project is on a site which has been zoned for this height and density for 25 years as part of the downtown plan. this site was always intended for a mix of office and residential use of this type and density. you will hear michael talk about this more. existing on the site to date is a parking lot that accommodates 200 cars. the existing project has less than half that amount of parking on site. the shuttle impact that has been described will run along second avenue. the height proposed for this project is" compliant along second avenue. the proposed rezoning in front of you is not for the part of the site along second, but is for the western edge and occupies 15% of the site. a fairly small percentage of the site is offered for rezoning. we will present you with more detail. >> thank you, members of

the draft eir together with the cnr document are before you for certification today. staff are not being asked to consider the merits of the project, as this is not relevant to the adequacy of the eir. project approval is on the agenda for today's meeting following certification. this discusses the impact to the project that would or would not result in significant environmental impact, or would be reduced to less than significant levels with identified mitigation measures. specifically, it found that implementation of the proposed project would have significant environmental impact related to cultural resources, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and hazardous materials that could be mitigated to less than significant levels. there is one impact that would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of mitigation measures. we found that implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on cultural resources related to demolition of the tonga room, which has been identi

i have reviewed the e.r. -- the eir. i think the city has done a great job and i recommend approval of the ceqa. >> my name is justin. i worked with tishman and wakefield brokerage firm in san francisco. i am a fifth generation san franciscan. my great grandfather was a small business owner, as well as my grandfather. we represent hertz

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 look at some alternatives? the devel

>> the planning commission has determined not to certify the eir. whatever the shortcomings on m the eir, the commission is going to address those. i think at this point, going through the list of issues, getting ready to prepare those changes to the eir, it could certainly continue this item, but at this point it seems that the failure of decertification is that the eir -- the commission has found that by not certifying that the eir need some additional information and corrections, it is attempting to address that. >> if i could, i think i and understand what ms. stacey just said, but what ms. duffy was saying was not to reconsider the eir in a week, but to reconsider the postponement in a week, not to put the eir up to a new vote but to be able to answer some of the legal questions about how to proceed. president miguel: if i might, the city attorney has already applied on the issue. i do not know what we need to have another week to have the attorneys. >> let me say something. i never said that i opposed this project. i never said i did not like i

please approve the eir. president miguel: stephen gomez followed by others. >> ladies and gentlemen, stephen gomez, a resident of over 30 years. i am also president of the homeowners' association at california street, which represents 91 apartments, approximately 200 individuals. and also on the board of directors at 1177 california st., which has to wonder 50 apartments and close to 300 residents. -- which has 250 apartments and close to 300 residents. this has been explained to us by folks at the vermont at several occasions. our hoa's realize this is going to be a disruptive event for a number of years, but we think it will advance the quality of life on nob hill. nob hill has become steadily more residential over the past few years, and going to a motel we think will be beneficial. we think the residential presence will also be beneficial to the hill. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephen captain. i have been a resident of non- hill -- nob hill since 1972. i hav

on clarifying the eir? commissioner moore: move to continue. it is done. president miguel: could i have the project's sponsor please come up and give me an idea of what would be inappropriate time for the continuation? commissioner moore: it is not up to staff to make a motion. president miguel: we first have to be able to make the corrections that are necessary here. >> i think if you want to continue the item in the face of a deadlock of non-certification, you need to give a specific direction as to what is adequate. president miguel: i would assume the u.s. to answer those commissioners who commented on what they found to be inadequacies and try to answer those inadequacies and bring back a document that would be satisfactory to the two commissioners who spoke to inadequacies. >> i think that is true. i think it would be helpful if there are any other concerns, if they articulate here so that we come back fully addressing whatever concerns they voiced today or have not articulated. i mean, if we are continuing, we should have a document come to you that

one is missing from the eir. when we adopted the downtown plan, there was a requirement for some might access to public sidewalks in t3 districts. the streets in the south of market art second street and new montgomery. all the other streets protected in the downtown plan are north of market. these are the only to streets. the sunlight analysis -- the shuttle analysis -- how was it done? it was done in a memo that was done by the developer and given to staff. it was not in anin the ier. -- eir. it was not tested, it was not commented on. the analysis of shadows under prop k -- we have shadows under prop k. we have shows that are particularly important on second street. you do not have that tested or analyzed with the impact on housing. i am going to get back to shadows later on, in my closing, but you need to hear about how this affects families in the south of market that live near here. as i said, this is right across from the transit district area. thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i have to

i want to highlight the inadequacy and eir. the proposed condo's should not be treated like common housing stock. they will be occupied just a small fraction of the year. they will not support the same kind of employment as typical residences would. we raised this during the comment time. the staff responded dismissively, saying that the common does not raise issues regarding the accuracy of this eir. they went on to restate that the demand for employees services by hotel guests would be reduced, but a similar number of police currently providing guest services would be expected to provide similar services to new residents. this defies common sense and it defies our of the -- experience as comparable structures in san francisco. these hotel-branded condominiums are not designed as primary residences. at the four seasons, less than 1/3 of the condos are registered as primary residences. the number is even fewer at the st. regis, and that is the figure that has been stable since he property opened nine years ago. many of the rest

they want a review that is not addressed in the eir. the most obvious one. let's step back a second. the addition would double the height of the podium from 50 feet to 105 ft. the new structure itself would be the tallest building except for the tower.

we have written letters on behalf of the eir and urge that you review those. given the limited time i have, the addition of the five-story at-on -- add-on isn't significant. we object to that conclusion. it is stated that from various vistas, the addition of the five stories were not adversely affecting the views. they are all the wrong ones. they want a review that is not addressed in the eir. the most obvious on let's step back a second. the addition would double

they want a review that is not addressed in the eir. the most obvious one. let's step back a second. the addition would double the height of the podium from 50 feet to 105 ft. the new structure itself would be the tallest building except for the tower. it endorsed these opposite buildings. -- dwarfs these opposite buildings. it is a significant addition and it should be addressed. given the comments and responses for not taking into account the vista is if the height affects private views only. it affects the streetscape. it affects private and public views. it is not disproportionate to the buildings on the eastern side between california and sacramento. as you have heard, the university club is four stories. this will be 10 stories plus. the francesca is 9 stories. the francesca is 20 feet below, it slopes downward. proportionate means

it was kind of brushed aside by the eir and planning department. you have a project that is supposed to comply with 146 of the planning code, and 146 says, the project shall be required to avoid penetration of the sun access plane. one of them is second street. that is a weird concept, but it tells you how to model the building so it doesn't impact the shadows on the street. they violated the shadow plane, and it violated the bloc standards. they maxed out the volume of the site so that it shadows yerba buena in the morning. when do they take their lunch? in the most accessible corner for most people going there, it will shadow second street where there are still a lot of families and kids, they don't include the chateau analysis on second street which is it a code required analysis. they don't bother putting it in me eir so no one soin -- -- they don't bother putting it in the eir so no one can see it. even though they have four standards, there is a general street protection requirement, and there is a specific requirement, 146. 295 is that you do

that should be connected to the accuracy of the eir. please speak clearly so we can have an accurate transcript. and please state your name so that you can be adequately identified and you can be sent a copy of the comments for this document. after hearing the comments of the general public we will take any comments by the planning commission. the public comment period began september 15 until november 2, 2010. this concludes my presentation on this matter. and unless the commission has any questions i would ask that the public hearing be open. >> >> my comment card is for lee molten. you are right. is there any public comment on this item, the draft eir? in that case, public comment is closed. as you have heard, the comment period is open until november 1. this is monday. >> november 2nd. >> november 1st is on the draft eir. >> that was because the project was continued. >> i don't have a problem. tuesday. very good. antonini? commissioner antonini: this was well done and compliant with planning. it goes on to present other alternatives

the beneficial releases have been incorporated into the eir? marine fisheries service, the california department of fish and game on a scheduled to benefit the resident and migratory fish downstream of the lower crystal springs dam. improvements to the agencies felt were necessary. there has been an extensive amount of study in a short time to come up with what we believe was a=> reasonable and could st of releases. on the environmental side, i am pleased with that result. on the water supply side, there will be a reduction in supply as a result of those releases for customers. i am concerned about the water supply impact. we're looking at that. there is analysis referenced in the document. we need to look into those in the future. that is what we're talking about, coming back to the commission to talk about that. one thing we're clear on is we are not going to not meet our service goals. that is a commitment. >> so we will get more information as the year goes on as to the actual impact on the water supply? >> yes. >> ok, good. >> it is detail