DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIR Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO. 2007.0558E and 2008.0789E STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008072073 Draft EIR Publication Date: SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: NOVEMBER 3, 2011 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: SEPTEMBER 28 THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 2011 Final EIR Certication Date: MAY 24, 2012 May 10, 2012 To: Members of the Planning Commission and Interested Parties From: Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer Re: Attached Comments and Responses on Draft Environmental Impact Report Case No. 2007.0558E: Transit Center District Plan and Case No. 2008.0789 Transit Tower Attached for your review please find a copy of the Comments and Responses document for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above‐referenced project. This document, along with the Draft EIR, will be before the Planning Commission for Final EIR certification on May 24, 2012. Please note that the public review period ended on November 28, 2011. The Planning Commission does not conduct a hearing to receive comments on the Comments and Responses document, and no such hearing is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Interested parties, however, may always write to Commission members or to the President of the Commission at 1650 Mission Street and express an opinion on the Comments and Responses document, or the Commission’s decision to certify the completion of the Final EIR for this project. Please note that if you receive the Comments and Responses document in addition to the Draft EIR, you technically have the Final EIR. If you have any questions concerning the Comments and Responses document or the environmental review process, please contact Sarah B. Jones at (415) 575‐ 9034. Thank you for your interest in this project and your consideration of this matter. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIR Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO. 2007.0558E and 2008.0789E STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008072073 Draft EIR Publication Date: SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: NOVEMBER 3, 2011 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: SEPTEMBER 28 THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 2011 Final EIR Certication Date: MAY 24, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower EIR Comments and Responses Page A. INTRODUCTION C&R-1 B. LIST OF PERSONS COMMENTING C&R-3 C. REVISIONS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT C&R-4 Transit Center District Plan C&R-4 Transit Tower C&R-10 D. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES C&R-12 General Comments [comments coded beginning with “G”] C&R-12 EIR Summary [Sum] C&R-18 Project Description [PD] C&R-18 Aesthetics [AE] C&R-35 Population and Housing, Business Activity and Employment [PH] C&R-44 Cultural and Paleontological Resources [CP] C&R-50 Transportation [TR] C&R-57 Noise and Vibration [NO] C&R-75 Air Quality [AQ] C&R-79 Shadow and Wind [SH] C&R-80 Recreation and Public Space [RE] C&R-101 Biological Resources [BI] C&R-102 Public Services and Utilities [UT] C&R-103 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity [GE] C&R-106 Hazards and Hazardous Materials [HZ] C&R-110 Cumulative Impacts [CU] C&R-112 Alternatives [ALT] C&R-113 Comments on the Merits of the Proposed Project [P] C&R-119 E. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR C&R-121 ATTACHMENT 1: Comment Letters ATTACHMENT 2: Public Hearing Transcript LIST OF FIGURES C&R-1. Office and Residential Development: Demand Versus Capacity, 2007 - 2035 C&R-26 C&R-2 Downtown San Francisco Steam Loop C&R-34 C&R-3 Cumulative Visual Simulations: Bay Bridge Upper Deck C&R-43 C&R-4 Potential First and Mission Streets Historic District C&R-56 C&R-5 Key to Shadow Impacts C&R-90 C&R-6 Diffuse Shadow Cast by Transamerica Pyramid, December 6 C&R-97 Case Nos. 2007.0558E and 2008.0789E C&R-i Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower 207439\ Page LIST OF FIGURES (cont’d.) Revised Draft EIR Figures Revised Figure 1 – Project Location Following C&R-139 Revised Figure 3 – Existing and Proposed Height Limits Following C&R-139 Revised Figure 7 – Existing and Proposed Conservation and Following C&R-139 National Register Districts Revised Figure 30B – Visual Simulations: Yerba Buena Gardens Following C&R-139 Revised Figure 34A – Visual Simulations: Twin Peaks Following C&R-139 Revised Figure 34B – Visual Simulations: Twin Peaks Following C&R-139 LIST OF TABLES C&R-1 Select Residential Development Projects in the Plan Area C&R-45 Revised Draft EIR Table Revised Table 41 – Shadow on Section 295 Parks from Development Following C&R-139 in the Plan Area Case Nos. 2007.0558E and 2008.0789E C&R-ii Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower 207439\ Comments and Responses A. Introduction Purpose of the Comments and Responses Document This document contains public comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR, or DEIR) prepared for the proposed Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower project (State Clearinghouse No. 2008072073), and responses to those comments. Also included in this document are text changes initiated by Planning Department staff as well as text changes in response to comments on the Draft EIR. Environmental Review Process On September 28, 2011, the San Francisco Planning Department published the Draft EIR on the Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower office project for public review and comment. The public review and comment period on the document extended from September 28 through November 28, 2011.1 During the 61‐day public review period, the San Francisco Planning Department received written comments sent through the mail or by hand‐delivery, fax, or email (see Attachment A). Oral comments were received at the public hearing on the Draft EIR, held before the Planning Commission on November 3, 2011. A court reporter was present at the public hearing, transcribed the oral comments verbatim, and prepared a written transcript (see Attachment B). This Comments and Responses document has been distributed to the San Francisco Planning Commission, State Clearinghouse, agencies and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR. This document, which responds to comments received on the Draft EIR and includes associated revisions to the Draft EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower project. The Final EIR must be certified by the Planning Commission prior to consideration of the proposed project for approval. Document Organization Following Section A, Introduction, Section B contains a list of all persons and organizations who submitted written comments on the Draft EIR and who testified at the public hearing on the Draft EIR held on November 3, 2011. Section C presents a discussion of revisions to the proposed Transit Center District Plan and the Transit Tower introduced since the publication of the Draft EIR. This section also discusses any changes in impacts as a result of the revisions to the project. Section D contains verbatim transcriptions of substantive comments on the Draft EIR made orally during the public hearing and received in writing during the public comment period, from September 28 through November 28, 2011. Comments are grouped by environmental topic and generally correspond to 1 Although the DEIR public comment period was intended to run from September 28 through November 14, 2011, the comment period was extended for two weeks by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2011. Case Nos. 2007.0558E and 2008.0789E C&R-1 Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower 207439 Comments and Responses A. Introduction the table of contents of the Draft EIR. However, if no comments addressed a particular topic, that topic does not appear in this document. The name of the commenter is indicated following each comment summary. In the text of the comments, an ellipsis (…) standing alone as a separate paragraph indicates that one or more paragraphs in a comment are not included in the quoted text, either because those portion(s) of the comment appear under another topic or because they do not address substantive issues with respect to the EIR. Section E contains text changes to the Draft EIR made by the EIR preparers subsequent to publication of the Draft EIR to correct or clarify information presented in the DEIR, including changes to the DEIR text made in response to comments. Section E also contains revised DEIR figures. Some of the responses to comments on the Draft EIR provide clarification regarding the DEIR; where applicable, changes have been made to the text of the DEIR, and are shown in double underline for additions and strikethrough for deletions. Some comments made both in writing and at the public hearing were directed towards the merits of the proposed Transit Center District Plan and/or Transit Tower. No responses need be provided to these comments, unless they concern the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR. In some instances, however, additional information is given. The comment letters received and the transcript of the public hearing are reproduced in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. These comments and responses will be incorporated into the Final EIR as a new chapter. Text changes resulting from comments and responses will also be incorporated in the Final EIR, as indicated in the responses. Case Nos. 2007.0558E and 2008.0789E C&R-2 Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower 207439 Comments and Responses B. List of Persons Commenting Written Comments Public Agencies Gary Arnold, District Branch Chief, Local Government – Intergovernmental Review, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), letter, November 28, 2011 Ryan Miya, Senior Hazardous Substances Scientist, Northern California – Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, letter, October 28, 2011 Val Joseph Menotti, Planning Department Manager, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), letter, November 23, 2011 Ron Downing, Director of Planning, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District (GGBHTD); letter, November 14, 2011 Charles Edwin Chase, President, San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), letter, November 30, 2011 Irina P.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The San Francisco Arts Quarterly SA Free Publication Dedicated to the Artistic Communityfaq
    i 2 The San Francisco Arts Quarterly SA Free Publication Dedicated to the Artistic CommunityFAQ SOMA ISSUE: July.August.September Bay Area Arts Calendar The SOMA: Blue Collar to Blue Chip Rudolf Frieling from SFMOMA Baer Ridgway Gallery 111 Minna Gallery East Bay Focus: Johansson Projects free Artspan In Memory of Jim Marshall CONTENTS July. August. September 2010 Issue 2 JULY LISTINGS 5-28 111 Minna Gallery 75-76 Jay Howell AUGUST LISTINGS 29-45 Baer Ridgway Gallery 77-80 SEPTEMBER LISTINGS 47-60 Eli Ridgeway History of SOMA 63-64 Artspan 81-82 Blue Collar to Blue-Chip Heather Villyard Ira Nowinsky My Love for You is 83-84 SFMOMA 65-68 a Stampede of Horses New Media Curator Meighan O’Toole Rudolf Frieling The Seeker 85 Stark Guide 69 SF Music Collector Column Museum of Craft 86 Crown Point Press 70 and Folk Art Zine Review 71 East Bay Focus: 87-88 Johansson Projects The Contemporary 73 Jewish Museum In Memory: 89-92 Jim Marshall Zeum: 74 Children Museum Residency Listings 93-94 Space Resource Listings 95-100 FOUNDERS / EDITORS IN CHIEF Gregory Ito and Andrew McClintock MARKETING / ADVERTISING CONTRIBUTORS LISTINGS Andrew McClintock Contributing Writers Listing Coordinator [email protected] Gabe Scott, Jesse Pollock, Gregory Ito Gregory Ito Leigh Cooper, John McDermott, Assistant Listings Coordinator [email protected] Tyson Vogel, Cameron Kelly, Susan Wu Stella Lochman, Kent Long Film Listings ART / DESIGN Michelle Broder Van Dyke, Stella Lochman, Zmira Zilkha Gregory Ito, Ray McClure, Marianna Stark, Zmira Zilkha Residency Listings Andrew McClintock, Leigh Cooper Cameron Kelly Contributing Photographers Editoral Interns Jesse Pollock, Terry Heffernan, Special Thanks Susie Sherpa Michael Creedon, Dayna Rochell Tina Conway, Bette Okeya, Royce STAFF Ito, Sarah Edwards, Chris Bratton, Writers ADVISORS All our friends and peers, sorry we Gregory Ito, Andrew McClintock Marianna Stark, Tyson Vo- can’t list you all..
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to San Francisco!
    Welcome to San Francisco! I can’t wait to share my city’s history with you. Dive deeper into the history of the Julie: An American Girl books with this tour of San Francisco. Julie Albright grew up in 1970s San Francisco and joins in the city's long history of environmental and human rights activism. She also learns about the importance of culture and diversity with Ivy, her Chinese American friend. Learn more about these topics by exploring San Francisco through Julie's eyes and experiences. The tour should take between two and four hours, depending on how long you spend at each stop. Three of the stops include visits to a museum and the Hetch Hetchy stop requires an alternate location. #JulieSFTour History Pin: http://bit.ly/juliesftour Google Maps Route: https://goo.gl/maps/JPw9soUj3x41UaPR9 STOP 1: Establishing A Home Away From Home Dragon’s Gate, Bush St & Grant Ave Julie's best friend Ivy is Chinese-American and shares with Julie her Chinese heritage. San Francisco's Chinatown is the oldest Chinatown in the United States and is home to one of the largest Chinese populations outside of Asia. Chinese immigrants first arrived in San Francisco in 1848 in pursuit of gold and work during California's Gold Rush. Although few people found gold, a Chinese community formed around Portsmouth Square as a home away from home for Chinese immigrants and as an escape from discrimination. Chinese immigrants established churches, schools, and businesses, and Chinatown acted as a city within a city. Despite facing discrimination and anti-Chinese laws, Chinatown and its residents persevered and fought to maintain their community and culture in San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2020 Report Corporations Code Section 301.3 Report Methodology
    ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OFFICE March 2020 Report Corporations Code Section 301.3 Report Methodology The July 2019 Report and March 2020 Report have been created by using publicly available information provided in annual California and annual federal filings by corporations, as well as information provided by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), NYSE American (formerly known as the American Stock Exchange or AMEX and more recently as NYSE MKT), National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ), and other sources available on the internet, including company websites. The Secretary of State posted a benchmark report on July 1, 2019, listing all publicly held corporations that stated a principal executive office in California on the annual report filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Form 10-K) during the 6-month period of January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. The July 2019 Report also listed all publicly traded corporations identified through the Publicly Traded Disclosure Search on the Secretary of State’s website that reported having at least one female director on their annual Corporate Disclosure Statement filings with the Secretary of State. The March 2020 Report has been created by combining information in the July 2019 Report with data for the additional 6-month period of July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. The information and statistics provided in the reports were generated by a search of the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR) for corporations listing a principal executive office in California on their SEC Form 10-K filing.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FRANCISCO 2Nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report
    SAN FRANCISCO 2nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report Historical Asking Rental Rates (Direct, FSG) SF MARKET OVERVIEW $60.00 $57.00 $55.00 $53.50 $52.50 $53.00 $52.00 $50.50 $52.00 Prepared by Kathryn Driver, Market Researcher $49.00 $49.00 $50.00 $50.00 $47.50 $48.50 $48.50 $47.00 $46.00 $44.50 $43.00 Approaching the second half of 2014, the job market in San Francisco is $40.00 continuing to grow. With over 465,000 city residents employed, the San $30.00 Francisco unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%, the lowest the county has witnessed since 2008 and the third-lowest in California. The two counties with $20.00 lower unemployment rates are neighboring San Mateo and Marin counties, $10.00 a mark of the success of the region. The technology sector has been and continues to be a large contributor to this success, accounting for 30% of job $0.00 growth since 2010 and accounting for over 1.5 million sf of leased office space Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 this quarter. Class A Class B Pre-leasing large blocks of space remains a prime option for large tech Historical Vacancy Rates companies looking to grow within the city. Three of the top 5 deals involved 16.0% pre-leasing, including Salesforce who took over half of the Transbay Tower 14.0% (delivering Q1 2017) with a 713,727 sf lease. Other pre-leases included two 12.0% full buildings: LinkedIn signed a deal for all 450,000 sf at 222 2nd Street as well 10.0% as Splunk, who grabbed all 182,000 sf at 270 Brannan Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining a Historic High-Rise Structure
    ctbuh.org/papers Title: Sustaining a Historic High-Rise Structure Authors: Nina Mahjoub, Project Engineer, Holmes Culley Megan Stringer, Project Engineer, Holmes Culley Bill Tremayne, Principal, Holmes Culley Subjects: Retrofit Seismic Keywords: Life Cycle Analysis Retrofit Seismic Structure Sustainability Publication Date: 2015 Original Publication: CTBUH Journal, 2015 Issue I Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter 2. Journal paper 3. Conference proceeding 4. Unpublished conference paper 5. Magazine article 6. Unpublished © Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Nina Mahjoub; Megan Stringer; Bill Tremayne Retrofit / Seismic Sustaining a Historic High-Rise Structure One of the tallest seismic retrofits in North America was undertaken in the heart of San Francisco. The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company headquar- ters was an achievement of architecture of its day when completed in 1925, and it remains an emblem of the Art Deco movement. The building’s current owner decided to embark on the challenging endeavor of reviving the historic structure. This meant preserving the historic fabric, creating an open, flexible Nina A. Mahjoub Megan Stringer workspace, and infusing state-of-the-art technology and sustainability into all its aspects, including a voluntary full seismic structural upgrade. Introduction capacity of the existing building system. Moreover, this approach allows the engineer Situated in the heart of downtown San to better understand how the new and Francisco, the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph existing systems behave together during a (PT&T) Company headquarters opened in seismic event, and therefore provides a Bill Tremayne 1925, reaching 132.7 meters and becoming smart, more sustainable, and less obstructive the tallest building in the city upon solution while maintaining the historic fabric Authors completion (see Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Policies and Protocols for Demand Response, Load Impact Estimates, Cost-Effectiveness Rulemaking 07-01-041 Methodologies, Megawatt Goals and (January 25, 2007) Alignment with California Independent System Operator Protocols RESPONSE OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR TO CLECA MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE REVISED IOU’S STRAW PROPOSAL FOR DEMAND RESPONSE COST EFFECTIVENESS I. Introduction The California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”) submits this response to the motion of the California Large Energy Consumers Association (“CLECA”) to strike portions of the Revised IOU Straw Proposal for Demand Response Cost Effectiveness. CLECA has made this motion in the alternative to CLECA’s request for evidentiary hearings regarding three issues for which CLECA believes there are factual disputes. The CAISO’s response is prompted by the second factual issue raised by CLECA: 2. The proposed requirement that only DR programs qualifying for resource adequacy (RA) status be treated as avoiding capacity costs. In support of its request for hearings and/or motion to strike for this issue, CLECA purports to characterize certain positions of the CAISO regarding the valuation of Demand Response resources. The CAISO feels that CLECA has mischaracterized, somewhat, the CAISO’s position on the subject, and so the CAISO files these comments to clarify the record as to the CAISO’s position. R.07-01-041 CAISO RESPONSE TO CLECA MOTION TO STRIKE RE IOU CE STRAW PROPOSAL We note that the Commission’s recent Order Instituting Rulemaking 07-09-008 (issued September 25, 2007) articulated the foundational steps in determining when evidentiary hearings are necessary: Parties who believe that evidentiary hearings are necessary shall follow the procedure set forth below.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE: a LEGAL HISTORY by John S
    THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE: A LEGAL HISTORY By John S. Caragozian San Francisco teems with icons: Alcatraz, cable cars, the Transamerica Pyramid. The greatest is the Golden Gate Bridge, an engineering and aesthetic marvel. A railroad bridge across the Golden Gate was first suggested in 1872 by Charles Crocker, one of the “Big Four” founders of the company that had built the western portion of the transcontinental railroad. The railroad ended up with a different route to San Francisco, and the bridge idea faded. Over 40 years later, a University of California engineering graduate-turned-journalist proposed a bridge in several San Francisco Bulletin editorials, but World War I diverted public interest. The editorials, though, caught the attention of San Francisco City Engineer Michael O’Shaughnessy. In 1917, he asked a bridge engineer visiting from Chicago, Joseph Strauss, to evaluate the Golden Gate proposal. See generally, Stephen Cassady, Spanning the Gate (1986), at 13-16. Strauss understood that a bridge posed a political challenge as well as an engineering one. Was a bridge needed? On the one hand, few people lived north of the Golden Gate; for example, Marin County had barely 27,000 people per the 1920 census. On the other hand, growing automobile traffic was straining the ferries that were the only link across the Golden Gate. Moreover, a bridge would enhance San Francisco’s commercial prominence with a direct link north. In 1920, Strauss completed a Golden Gate Bridge proposal, including a design, budget, and revenue projections. With then-current technology, no suspension bridge could span the entire Golden Gate.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013-00985C3340.Pdf
    SERVICE LIST JCCP 4765 ADDRESS PARTY Trenton H. Norris ABACO Partners LLC; Commonwealth Sarah Esmaili Soap & Toiletries, Inc.; E.T. Browne Arnold & Porter LLP Drug Company, Inc.; Home & Body Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor Company, Inc.; Method Products, Inc. San Francisco, CA 94111 [email protected] [email protected] Kevin C. Mayer Added Extras LLC Crowell & Moring LLP 515 S. Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 [email protected] John E. Dittoe Advanced Healthcare Distributors, Reed Smith LLP L.L.C.; CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] Paul H. Burleigh Alberto-Culver Company; TIGI Linea LeclairRyan, LLP Corp. 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350 Los Angeles, CA 90017 [email protected] Bruce Nye Albertson’s, LLC; Raani Corporation; Barbara Adams SUPERVALU, Inc. Adams Nye Becht LLP 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 [email protected] [email protected] Jason L. Weisberg Archipelago, Inc. Roxborough Pomerance Nye & Adreani 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 250 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 [email protected] Sophia B. Belloli Aspire Brands; Bonne Bell, LLC Michael Van Zandt Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] Richard E. Haskin Awesome Products, Inc. Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet Wittbrodt LLP 1880 Century Park East, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] Robert A. Randick Barbera Studio, Inc. Randick O’Dea & Tooliatos, LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FRANCISCO) Z
    1 Irving Sulmeyer (CA Bar No. 22910) Victor A. Sahn (CA Bar No. 97299) 2 Frank V. Zerunyan (CA Bar No. 140191) SULMEYER, KUPETZ, BAUMANN & ROTHMAN 3 A Professional Corporation 300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 626-2311 5 Facsimile: (213) 629-4520 6 Attorneys for Certain California Counties with Claims against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 7 8 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO) z 04 11 00 U') 12 In re CASE NO. 01-30923 DM 11 z 13 Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Chapter (LLI Z oN >-I u ,,-NCD< 14 Debtor. M W CD 15 Federal I.D. No. 94-0742640 16 0UCOC' >- C -LJ l J 17 C', 18 19 20 21 22 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL RE 23 (1) RULE 2019 STATEMENT AND (2) REQUEST FOR SPECIAL NOTICE 24 25 I am employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the 26 age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 300 South 27 Grand Avenue, 14 th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. 28 [IS\AP1 D\41117R 1 5/141401 (3:07 PMVI--611~~1~, ~ Jr PROOF OF SERVICE of documents for 1 I am readily familiar with the practice for collection and processing & Rothman, a 2 mailing with the United States Postal Service of Sulmeyer, Kupetz, Baumann with the United 3 Professional Corporation, and that practice is that the documents are deposited in the 4 States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid the same day as the day of collection 5 ordinary course of business.
    [Show full text]
  • Hilton San Francisco Union Square
    Hilton San Francisco Union Square 36 37 33 22 23 24 26 15 333 O’Farrell Street, San Francisco, CA | 415-771-1400 11 THINGS TO DO A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY 34 1 Cable Cars – San Francisco’s cable car system is the world’s last manually 27 operated system. An icon of San Francisco, the cable car system forms part of the intermodal urban transport network operated by the San Francisco Municipal Railway. 2 Fisherman’s Wharf & Pier 39 – San Francisco’s most famous waterfront 7 community is one of the busiest and well known tourist attractions in the western United States. Explore our past, join in today’s fun, and catch a glimpse into the 8 future of Fisherman’s Wharf San Francisco! Home to two levels of unique specialty 19 5 28 38 shops that are surrounded by stunning views of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, Alcatraz Island and the famous San Francisco city skyline. 3 Alcatraz Island – Offers a close-up look at the site of the first lighthouse and US 6 built fort on the West Coast, the infamous federal penitentiary long off-limits to the public, and the history making 18 month occupation by Indians of All Tribes. Rich in 12 history, there is also a natural side to the Rock—gardens, tide pools, bird colonies, and bay views beyond compare. 9 4 San Francisco Zoo & Gardens – Connecting people with wildlife, inspiring caring for nature and advancing conservation action, the zoo is home to more than 2,000 exotic, endangered and rescued animals in 100 acres of majestic and peaceful 17 25 gardens located directly on the Pacific Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • BOMA Bulletin-Spring 2010
    SPRING 2010 www.bomasf.org BOMA San Francisco advances the commercial real estate industry through advocacy, professional development, and information exchange BOMA Membership An Investment in Local, State and National Advocacy for Commercial Real Estate would like to take this opportunity to issues, when the opportunity to influence thank you for renewing your decisions is greatest. Our local staff and On the Inside membership in BOMA San Francisco many members work closely with the paid for 2010. Your dues investment provides BOMA lobbyist in Sacramento. BOMA SF V ISITS DC our members with a variety of Ibenefits and services including BOMA International is a full- ••• 4 ••• luncheons, brown bag sessions, service trade association that seminars, social events, and advocates on behalf of our BOMA 360 opportunities to network with industry in Washington DC, professional colleagues and and provides a wide array of ••• 5 ••• expand your knowledge. Most educational programming for importantly, your investment commercial property YOUNG PROFESSIONALS and participation ensures practitioners. It is the only political advocacy on issues national real estate organization LEADERSHIP LUNCHEON affecting the regulations with a consistent and pro-active ••• 7 ••• governing our industry. presence in the various code Thomas Kruggel making bodies protecting your When assessing the value of a Hines interests. BOMA International is PAC AT THE PARK BOMA membership, we should also very active in the standard- ••• 8 ••• not overlook the portion of setting process and in bench- your dues that funds the activities of marking best practices, through vehicles TEXAS HOLD ’EM BOMA California and BOMA like the Experience and Exchange Report International.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State Of
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE FILED STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5-01-17 04:59 PM Order Instituting Rulemaking on the ) Commission’s Own Motion to Adopt Reporting ) R.92-08-008 Requirements for Electric, Gas, and Telephone ) (Filed August 11, 1992) Utilities Regarding Their Affiliate Transactions. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of 2016 ANNUAL REPORT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338 E) ON SUBSIDIARY, AFFILIATE, AND HOLDING COMPANY TRANSACTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH R.92-08-008, ORDERING PARAGRAPH NO. 2 on all parties identified on the attached service list R.92-08-008. Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: ☒ Transmitting the copies via e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail address. ☒ Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by hand or by overnight courier to the offices of the Assigned ALJ(s), or by U.S. mail to other addressee(s). Executed May 1, 2017, at Rosemead, California. /s/Jorge Martinez JORGE MARTINEZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 1 ************ SERVICE LIST *********** Last Updated on 09-MAR-2015 by: JVG R9208008 NOPOST ************** PARTIES ************** Margaret D.B. Brown Attorney At Law Jeffrey F. Beck PACIFIC BELL BECK & ACKERMAN 140 NEW MONTGOMERY ST., RM 1320 4 EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 760 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 545-9424 (415) 263-7300 [email protected] David A.
    [Show full text]