emissions. i would think that trucks that would be at the site in that volume, there is a headway of about two minutes each. i do not know how trucks go back quickly except if there are more 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
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 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 note
all the green is recreation and open space. this is the redevelopment plan for this area. when the first three projects came through, redevelopment controlled this block. their jurisdiction extended. 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
by the proposed appellant occurs june 28 at 6:15, shattering 267 square feet at the northeastern corner over sidewalk and a little bit of grass. the affected area would be along the northern edge of the eastern bloc, at the corner of washington street and embarcadero. there are no benches or seating in this area. the proposed project will provide public benefits in the form of new public open space. amounting to approximately 25,000 square feet of new open public space. jackson commons would be developed between the residential buildings and the help and aquatics center along the jackson st. alignment. the health and aquatics center along the jackson st. alignment. landscape and meandering pedestrian path will lead to a more hard skipped area with cafe seating at the embarcadero. pacific park totaling 11,500 square feet would be developed at the northern end of the project site and contain approximately 4500 square feet, children s and square garden and a cafe building wo
third full of street parking loading space which he described. i also understood that this provision applies to c-3. how is it that we can take a provision that is allowed in one zoning district and apply it to another zoning district? is it because if we approve deu dsud then it applies to that? this applies through the process in the code wherein the sponsor can request modifications to certain aspects of the code. this is one of those cases where essentially there is this allowance for the substitution of the places. the project sponsor is asking to make a comparable substitution for this particular project. commissioner sugaya: is that legal? normally, it is the zoning administrator who interprets the planning code. i do not have those sections in front of me so i will have to defer to the planning department and take a recess so i can go look at the planning code. commissioner sugaya: all right. i will still be here. since we are only allowed to speak one time, i h