i do not think these issues were properly addressed in the comments in response to the document. there is a statement in the comments and responses that says new information must be significant information that identifies a substantial increase in the severity of an impact. my question is, doesn t the increase of the number of trips from 20 to 90 constitute significant new information? on page 3c23, beginning on 21, this is in reference to the northeast embarcadero study. mr. guy said that this product is consistent with the northeast embarcadero study. also, i believe that the project sponsors architect said that the project implements the study. it seems to me that, if the project implements the study and is consistent with the study, it is, in some way, a land-use plan. the cnr document denies that but i do not believe it is true. secondly, and i am not a ceqa expert here, but the response to the ceqa section guidelines at 15262 says that a project involving only feasibili
anyone. in a minute i will call role, but i wanted to make sure everyone is aware the room is crowded, and people want to talk with their friends and neighbors. i am going to ask if you feel the need to do that, that you step outside and conduct those secondary discussions outside, because they are extremely disruptive. this room, although extremely beautiful, is horrible on a few sticks so it makes it difficult for the commissioners to hear what is going on. with that, roll-call for the planning commission. [calling roll] commissioner moore is absent. [calling roll] i should mention commissioner moore s absence is also excused. this today it s a little different than usual. the joint commissions are holding one of public hearing category for every item on the calendar, which includes the certification of the final eir. following the public hearings and is following the notes, following the public hearing, the planning commission will consider action on certify the fina
than two trucks being loaded at one time. i do not think it will turn off their engines. there must be an increase in emissions, the amount of traffic that is generated, impacts to intersections. i do not think these issues were properly addressed in the comments in response to the document. there is a statement in the comments and responses that says new information must be significant information that identifies a substantial increase in the severity of an impact. my question is, doesn t the increase of the number of trips from 20 to 90 constitute significant new information? on page 3c23, beginning on 21, this is in reference to the northeast embarcadero study. mr. guy said that this product is consistent with the northeast embarcadero study. also, i believe that the project sponsors architect said that the project implements the study. it seems to me that, if the project implements the study and is consistent with the study, it is, in some way, a land-use plan. the cnr do
before i get started, please turn off your cellphone or any other electronic devices. we have overflow. we will not allow standing in this room. we also cannot allow anyone to block the doors. if for some reason people are coming to speak, we ve want you to mine line up in the center ae so it that you are not blocking anyone. in a minute i will call role, but i wanted to make sure everyone is aware the room is crowded, and people want to talk with their friends and neighbors. i am going to ask if you feel the need to do that, that you step outside and conduct those secondary discussions outside, because they are extremely disruptive. this room, although extremely beautiful, is horrible on a few sticks so it makes it difficult for the commissioners to hear what is going on. with that, roll-call for the planning commission. [calling roll] commissioner moore is absent. [calling roll] i should mention commissioner moore s absence is also excused. this today it s a little di
the redevelopment staff and the redevelopment commission kept shooting down proposals to develop this site because it was not consistent with the redevelopment plan that called for open space and recreation facilities. mayor feinstein said letters as the mayor. she said another one as the senator. the fourth attempt to approve the site was in 2002, to develop what was supposed to be just what to 01 lot 201, but they found at the intruded in the area of the block to the north. this is a specific attempt. every one of these is involved, golden gateway, because they own the land. you are being asked to approve a project that you have incredibly sketchy information on. you have a lot of fancy drawings, and they look really nice, but look for two things where do you see how this project a really good rendering, the visual from sue bierman park, a huge part that is the southern boundary of this site there is not one visual that is a real rendering that would be expected on