|
Minutes
of the
Presidio Neighborhood Representative Work Group
Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton Goodlett Place, Rm. 278
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Redmond Kernan called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m..
Present: Cow Hollow Association -David Bancroft; Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association –Bob David; Jordan Park Improvement Association – Rich Worner; Laurel Heights Improvement Association – Donald Green; Marina Community Association – Martin Beresford; Marina Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants – Patricia Vaughey; Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning –Judith Hulka; Pacific Heights Residents Association – Carol Brownson; Planning Association for the Richmond – Redmond Kernan; Presidio Environmental Council – Doug Kern; San Francisco Architectural Heritage Organization – Jack Gold; Sierra Club - Becky Evans
Absent: Lake Street Residents Association – Bill Shepard; Marina Merchants Association – Peter Singh; Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors - Ron Blatman; Sea Cliff Properties Association - Chris Donahoe;
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
By motion of Ms. Evans and second by Mr. Kern, the minutes were approved with corrections including the revision of item 4 to state “A representative from the trust also confirmed that in addition to the July 14th public meeting, a public hearing will be held sometime in late August or early September” and the replacement of “2:10 p.m.” with “12:10 p.m.” on item 9.
3. CHAIR REPORT
Mr. Kernan requested target dates for the Board of Supervisors process so as to appropriately tailor work group meetings to the board timeline. Catherine Stefani stated that Supervisor Alioto-Pier will introduce a hearing request to the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee next Tuesday, July 29th, and suggested the work group prepare an interim report to present to the committee on August 7, 2008.
4. OVERVIEW OF WORK GROUP ISSUES/CONCERNS
Mr. Kernan requested that each member of the work group prepare for next week by putting their specific concerns in regard to the SEIS down in writing and sending them to Mrs. Stefani via Email. Ms. Evans questioned whether or not section 106 regulations would permit a building like the museum to be built in a historic district. Mr. Gold explained that although the proposed museum is too large to be placed on the Main Post that is not to say it should not go elsewhere within the Presidio. Mr. Kernan stated that he is displeased with the circular reasoning used in the SEIS to support the placement of the museum on the Main Post. Mr. Green provided the work group with a Section 106 fact sheet and timeline.
5. REPORTS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS RE SEIS
a. City Attorney: not present
b. Municipal Transportation Agency: Rana Ahmadi was present and gave a brief overview of how the MTA handles CEQA review. She stated that normally when a city project is being considered, MTA gets involved early and prepares a transportation analysis to be incorporated into the EIR. Ms. Ahmadi explained that in the case of the Presidio, MTA is acting as a reviewing agency and therefore only possesses the legal authority to comment on the SEIS. The MTA is currently negotiating with the Presidio Trust through a task force (the Presidio and City and County of San Francisco Transportation Work Group) which focuses on inter-agency coordination of all transit plans. The Presidio and City and County of San Francisco Transportation Work Group includes representatives from the Presidio Trust, the MTA, the SFCTA, Golden Gate Transit, the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, and the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau.
c. Mayor’s Office of Economic & Workforce Development: not present
d. Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services: Lisa Ang of the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services was present and stated that she is the Mayor’s liaison for District 2.
e. Planning Department- not present
f. San Francisco County Transportation Authority: not present.
g. Public Comment: Arleen Navarret of the PUC was present and explained that since the PUC supplies power to the Presidio and controls its waste water the PUC will comment on the SEIS and is happy to answer any of the work group’s questions. Members of the work group questioned whether or not the PUC believes there will be a need to provide the Presidio with additional power if the proposed developments occur.
6. CALENDAR OF REPORTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
SFCTA will attend the next meeting.
7. REPORT ON VISITATION STATISTICS
Mr. Worner explained he has contacted numerous museums with visitation questions and he is currently waiting for their responses. Mr. Green explained that he, too, is waiting for a response from the Presidio Trust regarding visitation statistics. Mr. Green also raised a question regarding how many of the projected visitors to the Presidio attractions actually represent duplicate visitors.
8. WRAP-UP OF ISSUES WORK GROUP MAY CONSIDER AT FUTURE MEETINGS
Members of the work group agreed to prepare individual lists of their concerns regarding the SEIS and their preferred alternative contained within the SEIS and/or a description of an alternative they would like to see.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
|
