To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

April 22, 2004 (Special Joint Meeting)

April 22, 2004 (Special Joint Meeting)


The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

Meeting Minutes
Special Joint Meeting

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 22, 2004
6:00 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

JOINT POWERS BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John McLemore, Sophie Maxwell, Jose Cisneros, Michael Burns, Jim Hartnett, Arthur Lloyd


PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Joan Kugler; David Alumbaugh; Dominick Argumedo; Patricia Gerber - Executive Secretary; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

PENINSULA JOINT POWERS BOARD STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Michael J. Sanlon - Executive Director; David J. Miller - Legal Counsel; Jennifer Buhr - Recording Secretary;


    At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

    Sharon Johnson - Senator John Burton's Office

    - She read a letter from Senator Burton who is in support of the EIR.

    Jim Salinas - San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council

    - He is asking that the Commission and the Board support the EIR.

    Emilio Cruz - Vice Chair of SPUR

    - He read a letter from SPUR who is in support of the EIR.

    Rebecca Kaplan - AC Transit Board of Directors

    - It is her believe that San Francisco's most pressing commuter problems are when cars are driven.

    - She urged the Commission and the Board to move this EIR forward.

    - This project has attracted money from various places and it would be extremely beneficial to allow the project to proceed.

    Jane Morrison - San Francisco Democratic Party

    - The Democratic Party completely supports the EIR and would like to get this terminal ready for action.

    - High-speed rail cannot happen if this project is not approved.

    David Schonbrunn - TRANSDEF

    - This project ties the region together.

    - It is appropriate that this be heard today because it is Earth Day.

    - He displayed a photograph of a vacant parking lot near the site where there is yet no construction equipment.

    - He urged the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR.

    Norman Rolfe - San Francisco Tomorrow

    - He urged the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR/EIS.

    - The consequences of not certifying these documents could be extreme.

    - Failure to implement these documents would cause conflict with Cal Trains and various other transit companies.

    Margaret Okuzumi - Executive Director of BayRail Alliance

    - They have been involved with this project for many years.

    - They previously submitted a letter expressing their support for this project.

    - Every detail has been analyzed and comments have been submitted.

    Molly Last

    - She owns a loft

    - She has a lot of concerns about the bus storage.

    - The Giants games and families that will have to pass near this storage and will smell the gas and fumes from the buses.

    - This is not reasonable

    Ken Bukowski - Vice Mayor - City of Emeryville

    - San Francisco wants a transit only policy so this EIR should be certified.

    David Gleeson

    - He lives on 2nd Street and will be affected by the bus storage.

    - The EIR does not address the significant issue of the gas fumes.

    - The agency should evaluate the issues before certifying the EIR.

    Bob Tandler

    - He owns property adjacent to the Transbay Terminal.

    - He is in favor of the project but the EIR is not sufficient.

    - The EIR should consider the issue of taking public land and private land.

    - It would be a rush to certify the EIR today.

    William Blackwell

    - He and his wife are strong advocates of public transit.

    - Why not delete the superfluous costs of this project and apply them for other transit needs.

    Howard Strassner

    - He is very happy to be here in support of an EIR.

    - This is a basically great project that will do so much good for the environment.

    - Regarding the fumes, San Francisco has passed an ordinance regarding clean air.

    - Before this project gets built, diesel will be cleaner than it was before.

    - He hopes that the Commission will certify this EIR and get the project started.

    Walter Johnson - San Francisco Labor Council

    - It is time to get this project moving.

    - This has been going on for a long time.

    - There is great responsibility here to certify this EIR.

    Jim Haas - Transbay Citizen's Advisory Committee

    - He urged the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR.

    - This Transbay area will create a new neighborhood.

    - There is a lot of work to do in the future.

    - San Francisco is a major founder of this.

    John Spangler - Alameda Transit Advocates

    - He hopes that there will be a transit connection from San Francisco to Alameda.

    - He urges the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR.

    - Alameda Transit Advocates have submitted a letter expressing their support for these documents.

    Anthony Bruzzoni - Alameda Transit District Liaison

    - He submitted a letter of support for the EIR.

    - He urged the Commission and the Board to follow suit of the Redevelopment Agency and certify the EIR.

    - The EIR is adequate and complete and follows all the necessary policy decisions.

    Maurice Palumbo - Golden Gate Bridge Highway Transportation District

    - The district fully supports the EIR and urged the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR.

    Matt Mathews

    - He is here requesting that the EIR be delayed so that further study can be done.

    - The concerns are the bus storage location and how this will have a negative impact.

    George Yamas

    - He has several problems with the EIR.

    - There was a meeting related to this project where it was stated that the buses could not go back during the downtime to their home counties because of air pollution issues. Then it is stated that there won't be pollution issues.

    - Even it is stated that there will be low polluting buses, why isn't there a Conditional Use approval for these buses?

    - There seems to be a contradiction in all of this.

    Jan Mathews

    - She has several buildings on Stillman Street.

    - There are still questions regarding the emissions of the buses that will be stored.

    - She suggested having the bus storage on the third level of the Transbay terminal.

    - There are also aesthetics issues that need to be dealt with.

    Andrew Sullivan - Rescue MUNI

    - This project is crucial to transit riders.

    - They have reviewed carefully the EIR and believe that it is a good one.

    - This will be a great improvement for this neighborhood.

    - The EIR should be approved so that the 80 Natoma project can be dealt with.

    Daniel Krause - Rescue MUNI

    - He supports the EIR now. Later the 80 Natoma project can be dealt with.

    - There should not be any more delay. They will fight any blocks to delay this project.

    - By certifying the EIR it will provide an opportunity to resolve this conflict.

    Andre Custodia

    - He would like to have an extension of the decision to certify this EIR. He just obtained a copy and needs more time to analyze it.

    Joyce Roy - Leave of Women Voters of the Bay Area

    - They have long advocated for this project because of the importance of regional transit.

    - If this project does not get approved, you will forfeit the opportunity of having high-speed rail.

    Jack Myers - Myers Development Company

    - The EIR and EIS is flawed and does not acknowledge his project going ahead.

    - He has purchased a property and has closed on about a million dollars.

    - They are particularly offended that his company is involved in condemnation. His company has been in business for 30 years and he has never been involved in a condemnation process.

    Andrew Ball - Webcor Builders

    - The EIR does not address the entire permitted use of the subject property.

    - He has never seen such a flaw as fatal as this.

    - They have spent hundreds of hours estimating, awarding subcontracts, etc.

    - It takes considerable amount of time to do all this.

    Jeffrey Heller

    - He is hard pressed to believe that staff's comment about a fully approved project. He feels that this is a mandatory part of an EIR.

    - He has received no notice about this. He found out about this meeting at a ULI meeting in 2003.

    - If someone had discussed this project with him at that time, the alignment, as it is could have happened, [would not be] the same way it is drawn today.

    Steve Atkinson - Stefell, Levitt and Weiss

    - He is representing Meyers Development.

    - Staff took the position that under CEQA the EIR was not required to consider the impacts on 80 Natoma since it is a vacant lot. This is false.

    - The site is not just a vacant lot. Substantial subsurface construction has already begun.

    - The Natoma project will have been finished long before the Transbay project will even start.

    - He appreciates staff's clarification that there has not been a determination of any feasibility.

    - He requests that this certification be delayed.

    Erick Lundquist - Project Architect - Heller Manus Architects

    - The impact of a fully approved project should be dealt with before approving this project.

    - The project of 80 Natoma is a fully compliant project.

    - There should be a way to get the Transbay project through if they would just talk to him.

    Shepherd Heery

    - It is very important that the EIR recognize 80 Natoma as a real project.

    - Upon completion in 2006, 80 Natoma will contribute about three million dollars in property taxes.

    - This project should therefore not be jeopardized.

    - He has been frustrated by the inaccessibility of the rail team.

    Elizabeth Carney - Clock Tower

    - She thanked project staff for their support.

    - She is in support of this EIR.

    - There are items that are not considered in the comments section of the EIR.

    - It is not enough to count on clear air vehicles. Something creative needs to be done about the fumes.

    Ryan Hoover

    - He urged the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR and EIS.

    - The EIR is legally complete and legally adequate.

    - This project should not be delayed any longer.

    Scott Mace

    - He and his family live in Berkeley.

    - This project has some negative impacts for some people but will also provide some benefits for others.

    - He urged the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR.

    Bruce Barnes

    - He owns property on Stilman Street.

    - The land use map for Stilman Street is in error because it shows this area is industrial.

    - There is also a zoning map that has left out an entire block of Stilman Street.

    - He believes that the EIR should be delayed until all these errors have been fixed.

    Jeff Dye

    - He owns property on Stilman Street.

    - There are seven tenants that are unaware of where the bus storage will be relocated.

    - He is concerned with the health and safety of his tenants.

    - Creating a new neighborhood will take problems from one neighborhood and transferr them to another.

    - It is important to figure out where various idling buses will be located.

    Jamie Hahme - San Francisco Pacific Medical Center

    - She does not understand why this project should be delayed any longer.

    - She urged the Commission and the Board to certify this EIR.

    Rom Burmigham

    - He is a property owner on 2nd Street.

    - The biggest problem he has is the amazing destruction from the construction that will happen if this is approved.

    - He is amazed that all the ridership numbers are based on the high-speed rail which is something that has not even been proposed.

    - He is in favor of the bus terminal but is concerned about the open construction on 2nd Street.

    - It will be unbelievably disruptive.

    Robert Meyers - Transbay Citizen's Advisory Committee

    - He served on this committee for 12 years.

    - Natoma has always been a housing site.

    - He urged the Commission and Board to delay the decision of this EIR for a brief time.

    Adrian Brant - Train Riders Association of California

    - This project is a key to a few of the top rolls they have been working on for a few years.

    - He urged the Commission and the Board to certify the EIR this evening.

    - This is a major deal. If this is not certified because of some development, the legacy will be really bad.

    Lock Holmes

    - He urged the Commission and the Board not to certify the EIR/EIS because it is defective.

    John Kaufman

    - He opposes this certification of the EIR for several reasons.

    - The terminal will be replaced so the design should be functional.

    - The public has the right to know that there are alternatives to this project.

    Tom Radulovich - BART Board of Directors

    - He is glad to be hear on Earth Day as the EIR is moved forward to the next step.

    - The voters have spoken and really would like to move this project forward.

    - This EIR/EIS is in good order and meets the spirit of Proposition M and Proposition K.

    John Bacan

    - He noticed in the EIR that after spending billions of dollars there will be a net increase in link transit trips of 10,000 a day in the area. This works out to about 180,000 capital costs per new riders.

    - He agrees that CalTrain should be upgraded but it should be done a lot smarter and a lot cheaper.

    Jeff Carter

    - He strongly urges the Commission and Board to certify the EIR.

    - This is a very important project and it will give San Francisco a world-class terminal.

    - Downtown San Francisco should have a rail destination.

    Norman Weil

    - He owns property--an office building on 2nd Street and Howard.

    - There is a lack of notice that property owners received.

    Mark Janus

    - He lives in San Francisco and rides CalTrain to go to the peninsula.

    - Pollution throughout the Bay Area will be lower because of this project.

    - It seems clear that certifying the EIR is what the City needs.

    Richard Mynarik

    - He is in support of the EIR. It meets all the legal requirements.

    John Gasser - Adolf Gasser

    - In the Business Times he found out that he was building No. 21, which would be removed.

    - He was not directly notified.

    - He has been at that location since 1975. It is important to know what is underneath the street. On 2nd Street there are hundreds of phone lines.

    - It is important to do the Transbay terminal, which will not conflict with the Natoma project, but rethink the Cal Train extension.

    Michael Keasling - Cal Train CAC

    - He would like the Commission and Board to certify the EIR.

    - Various transportation entities have come together to support his project - how often does this happen?

    - Everyone is working together to get money and move this project forward.

    - Every delay for this project is affecting the public.

    Maria Ayourdy - Executive Director of the Joint Powers Board

    - She thanked everyone for their hard work on this project.

    - This project and the associated environmental review is a product of many years of hard work.

    - The process has been fair and has complied with all CEQA laws.


          2000.048E (J. A. KUGLER: (415) 558-5983)

          TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. A joint EIS/EIR has been prepared for this project. The proposed project has three major components: the construction of a multi-modal Terminal on the site of the present Terminal (that would be demolished) at Mission and First Streets; an underground extension of Caltrain commuter rail service from its current San Francisco terminus at Fourth and Townsend Streets to a new terminus underneath the proposed new Transbay Terminal; and establishment of a Redevelopment Area Plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development in the vicinity of the new multi-modal Transbay Terminal. The proposed Redevelopment Area would generally be bound by Mission, Main, Spear, Folsom, Essex, I-80, Second and Minna Streets while the Caltrain track alignment is under Townsend and Second Streets. Other subordinate components of the project include a temporary bus terminal facility at Beale and Folsom Streets to be used during construction of the new Transbay Terminal; a permanent off-site bus storage/layover facility; reconstructed bus ramps leading to the new Transbay Terminal; and a redesigned Caltrain storage yard.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Environmental Document

    NOTE: Public Hearing Closed.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Certified

      AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

      MOTION: 16773


      2. 2004.055M (D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6284)

          TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY PLAN - FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAN AND FINDING OF GENERAL CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. All, or portions of Assessor's Blocks 3718, 3719, 3720, 3721, 3736, 3737, 3738, 3739, 3740, 3749 and 3764; being generally the area bounded by Mission, Main, Folsom and Second Streets, together with a portion of the Block bounded by Howard, Spear, Folsom and Main Streets, and a portion of the Block bounded by Folsom, First, Harrison and Second Streets. Formulation of a Preliminary Plan for the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area, as revised from a previous Preliminary Plan (February 22, 2001), and finding said revised Preliminary Plan to be generally consistent with the San Francisco General Plan.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution formulating Preliminary Plan and finding said plan generally consistent with General Plan

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Adopted

      AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

      MOTION: 16774


    At this time, members of the public may address the Joint Commissions on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Joint Commissions except agenda items.


    Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. (in honor of Commissioner Feldstein)


    SPEAKERS: None

    ACTION: Approved

    AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:14 PM