but ceqa goes beyond that to other kinds of structures. old warehouses that are no longer being used. old automated uses -- automotive uses a long -- along van ness. transit shelters. i believe the youth guidance center, a jail, effectively. the muni presidio yard. street lights. potentially groupings of plants or trees. can you comment generally on those sort of non-traditional -- outside the hiding -- outside the housing stock and the public monuments, and how we should think about that in terms of these other policy goals that we have? >> the california and national register criteria outlined criteria on what is eligible as a historic resources at the state and federal level. those criteria are used by the city in determining what is a historic resource. the building, a site, an object, a collection of objects can qualify as a historic resource under the events criterion, the persons criterion, or the architecture criterium. there are a wide variety of different types of resources that can be classified under each of those criteria, and

the overall majority met what we call our ceqa checklist. it is folks to work anything from ordinary maintenance and repair to fairly sizable dormers on a property. we determined this would not pose an impact on a historic resource. they do not require additional historical review. the 149 projects that did require that additional review or major alterations to a property. the potentially did not meet the checklist. -- and a potentially did not meet a checklist. -- they potentially did not meet the checklist. we are required from ceqa to provide some written determination or evaluation for why we are okay or not ok with the project. to follow up, there were only eight focused eir's in the past year that related to direct impacts to historic resources. that does not regard larger processes -- larger projects. supervisor weiner: that was 8. >> that are currently in process or have been certified. supervisor weiner: do you know how many of those projects went away, because it made the project not work economically anymore? that seems like an im

ceqa does allow agencies to exempt certain projects. when they can show conclusively that there's no possibility of environmental impact flowing from the project. and specifically here, planning department has recommended a class one exemption which covers minor modifications to existing structures. the course of -- it narrowly construes the agency's use of an exemption and outlawed the use of mitigated exemptions which is exactly what's happening here. and for 30 years, courts have ruled numerous times the mitigated categorical exemptions are illegal. this is because once an agency determines that a project presents impacts the required mitigation, the agency can no longer assert a categorical exemption. at that point, it must conduct environmental review, describe the project, get the impact, propose measures and alternatives that would mitigate those impacts, and then circulate that document to the public. ceqa covers 18 different types of environmental impacts. one of which is noise. and it specifically describes the types of noise

i would like to briefly focus on ceqa. supervisor cohen: i have a question about survey process before i move on. do your surveyor's represent the ethnic community of san francisco? >> we do surveys in house and complete service with consultants. the decision or how we determine who we hire as a sub-consultant is a city process. that are required to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the city hiring program. i cannot tell you specifically whether they are made up of ethnic communities or they represent the ethnic community. supervisor cohen: you have done surveys and know your colleagues. when you look around yourself, is ethnically diverse? >> in terms of planning department staff, i would say yes. supervisor cohen: director, would you agree with that? >> i think the answer is yes. i think we have diversity on staff. supervisor cohen: i will not quibble over what the definition of diversity is we are working with. but i do specifically want to know if the group of analysts -- from my account, i would say there is r

but you had, you go to rec park and you get no ceqa information. they make the determination and it's fed into the ceqa determination. it's kind of a circle that how do you get out of? i really am troubled about the neg dec on transportation issues and i'm troubled about it on shadow issues. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i am representing the project sponsor tim brown bermont street homes. we do agrow with staff's analysis and the conclusion that you have a valid neg dec in your package and it should be upheld. i want to emphasifr emphasize td appellant must meet on the appeal which is in the absence of substantial evidence of the project may have a significant impact on the environment or the impacts can't be mitigated, the neg dec is appropriate and must be upheld. in order to prevail on the appeal t appellant must represent a fair argument on the negative impact. and i have put in my briefs that opinions and speculation and arguments do not meet the standard. on two key items that the appellant raise

isn't that a violation of ceqa? that would have to look at the project in its entirety rather than the piecemeal fashion? >> john from the city attorney's office. i think this -- i would disagree with how this is being characterized as somehow piecemealing or seg mentation. that's a concept in ceqa that if the environmental review itself doesn't look at the entirety of the project, and certain pieces of it left out, excuse me, out of the environmental review, that would be piecemealing or segmentation. here the environmental review that the planning department did looked at the entirety of the project, it looked at all 726 cabinets that each will go through a separate ter mitt process. it's -- permit process. it's not that different from most projects that come before the city and county of san francisco where there are multiple decision or multiple permits issued for a project. but there's a single environmental analysis and as long as that covers the entirety of the project, there is no piecemealing or segmentatio

this is why it is more than just a categorical exemption from ceqa. we're not here to review the dr hearing. i received a number of calls to overturn the d.r.. i know it goes to the board of appeals to review that. we do not have the authority to look at whether or not it was in bad faith that the patio is removed. that is behind us korea our decision is very, very narrow, and i take that commitment very seriously to review what is before us in a very narrow manner, and i understand there is a bit of a debate here, but my understanding is that the language according to ceqa is whether the project will cause a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise in the vicinity of the project. and as much as i share an understanding neighbor concerns, and i do not know if everyone has a copy of this, i have extra copies, but there was a test that was conducted when the property was close to capacity, and all of the doors were open, so not just what was required according to the planning commission, but all fire doors were opened. i do not feel i am in t

on another parallel course is ceqa. the idea is to complete ceqa by the end of the year so that we can start phase one construction january 2012. that is all i have for my report. there are any questions, i would be happy to answer. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? that a couple of questions. i'm curious how many people showed up at your bidder conference. >> i would say about 20 people, probably representing 12 or 15 firms. everybody you would expect to be there was there, so it was very good interest for this project. >> the ceqa for this project is separate and apart -- two heads nodding in different directions i'll hear your answer since you are at the podium. and then maybe you should finish the question. >> i think i got it. but question is is the separate and apart from the ceqa for the america's cup? >> robert may have to help me. but there was a notice of preparation that was done for the america's cup and the cruise terminal eir. those should be done working together. that should be comp

there was no difference in ceqa law. it's an arbitrary question of what we may decide here as cumulative. >> supervisor mirkarimi, i would defer any legal questions to the city attorney. for our purposes, the analysis is fundamentally the same. supervisor mirkarimi: it is different, is it not? a question to the city attorney, when was the last time that there was something before the board of supervisors that we had in favor of cumulative impact. >> i will make an attempt to answer your question, hetbut in essence, and the appeal that comes before the board of supervisors, the planning department did a more substantive analysis for medicated declaration. certainly in all of those instances, the planning department has looked at this issue of cumulative impact. any decisions that this board has made to uphold the ceqa determinations have -- [unintelligible] in terms of the cumulative impact relating to the particular project and similarly situated projects in the vicinity if they are going on at the same time. supervisor

it doesn't provide for ceqa review. it's also a very cumbersome way to approve 726 projects. >> do you think, though, that based on any kind of protest, neighborhood protests, that would then petition for appeal through the department of the board of permit appeals, that this would be sanitized of that potential argument because it would have not been recognized here at the board of supervisorses on environmental review, if it is then advanced? >> i'm sorry, but i'm not quite understanding. are you saying that at that point the appeal process wouldn't look at the issues that we're asking to you look at? it's hard to know what the board of appeals would do but their authority is limited to seeing if they comply with your regulations as opposed to whether there are significant environmental impacts. they would be required to see whether each one complies with the regulations that are in play at that point. supervisor mirkarimi: and you're presuming that the process would also discount this particular argument on environme

we have statewide ceqa laws, as you all know. most of the cities, over 260 cities, have not required any ceqa at all. as the total vacations kroatian, a utility. there are four or five cities that have required a ceqa review, and they have given us an exemption. supervisor elsbernd: you have not had to do an eir? >> we have not. supervisor elsbernd: thank you, ken. if you can complete your analysis? >> sure. in fact, i do not think i got to the cumulative impact, but to get to it, there is an evidence standards, which i think i sort of mentioned, but the only punitive impact that has been addressed brings us back to what i was going to talk about in the context of unusual circumstances, because the same set of case law applies about the aesthetics or cumulative aesthetics. aesthetics is judged according to the immediate surroundings. all of the cases say you must consider existing surroundings. moreover, in an urban environment, it must be consistent with the urban environment. these are consistent, as your planning department ha

on a discussion of how the city could streamline the overall ceqa process. supervisor weiner: we are on the same page on that one. chairperson mar: i know we have a number of department representatives. supervisor weiner: we have several other departments. we give planning quite a bit of time because that is sort of the heart of our preservation process. i would ask the remaining departments, if possible, to make your remarks in more of the 325 minute range. that would be terrific. mr. schumacher from the mayor's office of housing. >> i am perfectly suited for three to five minutes. that is the limit of my knowledge on all topics. i guess i want to just jump off where this started. i think the challenge and are facing is a complex process that is ceqa. in the case of federally funded affordable housing, what i came to talk about is how we need to understand our local decision making, whether it is in the creation of district or review, in light of how it interacts with those other processes. i think there are lots of things we could say about how effective i

complies with the ceqa, the ceqa findings. this concludes my presentation. at this time, i would like to introduce michael, presenting our co-lead agency, the treasure island development authority, following michael's presentation, our team can respond to any questions that the commission or board members may have. thank you. >> the treasure island development authority board of directors. item three. public hearing closed. 3 a resolution certifying the report, the treasure island, buena island project. good evening presidents olague and cheng, commissioners in and directors. as rick mentioned, the item before you is a resolution to certify the final environmental impact report for the treasure island, buena island development project by adopting this resolution, you will be certifying that the final e.i.r. is accurate and adequate and that the procedures by which it was prepared are consistent with the ceqa guidelines and the city's code. i defer my remarks to rick cooper to and staff is here to answer any questions that you may have or address any of the i

findings clarifying that the board of supervisors is adopting by reference the planning commission ceqa approval findings. supervisor elsbernd: if you would not mind, because we have so many people from the public who are interested in this, i think it would be of benefit to everybody if she could go through that. >> certainly. in the document you have in front of you, the first amendment is on page one, which is the amendment i just made -- not made, but mentioned regarding the ceqa findings, which clarifies that the board will be adopting, said they approve this project, the approval findings that the planning commission already made. the next amendment -- proposed amendment, rather, can be found on page four of the documents are provided, which is to planning code -- new planning code section 249.64, subsection a. we deleted all the references to block and lot numbers and instead just referred to the parkmerced special use district, which will be adopted by the conforming amendments being made to the zoning maps. a block and lot numbers, should the project be approved, will eventuall

there's been none of that done by your staff because it's exempted this project from ceqa.tegorical exemption can't be used here is that there are conditions. the staff, based on i think the p.u.c. or d.w.r. order, states that when every -- any box comes before them for review they'll consider aesthetics, they'll consider historic resources that may be in the vicinity, they'll consider pedestrian safety, basically they'll consider all the environment problems that are acknowledged to be possible here. when those kinds of conditions, and they are mitigation conditions, i just saw a memo, i haven't even read the whole thing from staff, the supplemental memo, that talks about the fact that these aren't really mitigating conditions that are being placed on these projects. but they are. a condition that may say nothing can be over five feet tall or nothing can be a certain width or that no construction can occur after a certain time, those are definite conditions that can be applied across the board. the conditions that are on this project involve the review by staff and discret

. -- ceqa's that are adequate. we used the 1990 president bush element with an updated data and needs analysis that was of data and data and needs analysis. the presumption is that you are using a housing element that is compliant with state law. we also considered a reduced project alternatives that is per the direction of the ceqsa -- ceqa guidelines. these policies had been joined by the court. that version of the housing element differs from the 1990 element in a couple of ways. one has to do with the mechanism encouraging affordability which do not in and of themselves have physical environmental impact but are substantially different between the 2004 housing element. under the 2004 alamance, there is greater protection of historical resources than existed under the 1990's alamance in order to provide for flexibility, we looked at an alternative that was not required under seek what -- under ceqa. that was another alternative that was considered. that covers the range of alternatives in the eir and i can speak

approval commission ceqa approval findings.

that is really when you have the most intense ceqa oriented lawyers talking to each other. and i have participated in that. and much of it is over my head. but i have to do it. and this might be for some people exactly what they need to do in order to get the latest lowdown and also ask very critical questions which many people across the state of california are asking each other. i'm talking the law profession at this moment. president olague: ok. i think we're on. >> commissioners, thank you. you can now start your regular calendar with item number 11. case number 2011.0172-t. and an ordinance introduced by supervisor mirkarimi concerning retail coffee stores, retail restaurants and video stores as well as additional recommendations by planning staff to consolidate compitching restaurant definitions and -- existing restaurant definitions and control. >> aaron star, department staff. the case before you is proposed legislation introduced by supervisor mirkarimi to all the restaurant definitions and article seven of the planning code. supervisor mirkarimi's aide, rob selnes

i have to say i'm still undecided with regards to the ceqa issues. i do think there has been a lot of question on what cumulative impact is, whether this fits into a class three category, and i do understand and appreciate, though that, where we are, i think, many of our colleagues feel that the either/or decision we could be faced with right now is not where we want to go in that we all know we want to build a 21st century technological infrastructure and we all know we want a beautiful city and if there are things we could do in the next couple of weeks to move that forward, i would be happy to be part of that conversation. i think supervisor wiener articulated one issue around ensuring there is a neighborhood-based process that respects our neighborhoods. i also think there have been issues around ensuring that we're maintaining the existing right-of-way infrastructure and questions that have been raised about past providers and historic performance in being able to address this and i want to make sure some of those issues are dealt with but we ha

i think the challenge and are facing is a complex process that is ceqa. in the case of federally funded affordable housing, what i came to talk about is how we need to understand our local decision making, whether it is in the creation of district or review, in light of how it interacts with those other processes. i think there are lots of things we could say about how effective inappropriate landmarking, surveying, and historic district creation is. but we also need to be cognizant of how it interacts with other systems, especially one that is clearly a very broken tool. one of the things i've heard coming up to this that i think will happen after this hearing is that we need to be cognizant and thoughtful -- if we know we are acting with a broken tool, how do we work together to fix the tool? that is the real culprit, and not just this aspect. that would be my request as we get through this. wherever we go, i think we have a very broken tool in ceqa and we need a lot of us to help fix that. these other processes interact with it in a way that is highly

under ceqa, an e.i.r. should consider a reduced growth alternative if it would meet most of the objectives of the project and avoid or lessen any effects. residents proposed three variants of reduced growth which the board refused to rexinize. the 11 area plans approved provide capacity for 39,600 units and the newly proposed ones for an additional 18,200 for a total of 57,800. appellants propose that the city consider the alternative of no additional area plans in rezoning since the e.i.r. admits that the units already in the pipeline anticipated to be developed total 25,000 units more than the city's chair of the 31,000 new unit regional housing needs allocation for this planning period 2007 to 2014 so they're already in excess without more area plans. the proposed increased capacity for the period up to 2014 is accepted and reducing it would reduce the impact of transit services needed to serve the residents of the new units, an impact which the e.i.r. admits is significant. another alternative suggeste

i could go through more cases that are cited related to ceqa. but i think the issue we have that most people addressed related to the project and how the product has changed because of financing mechanisms -- that is not a ceqa issue. that is a product issue. it would make sense to spend our time focusing on it there. the document is filled with a lot of significant unavoidable impact. ultimately, as a public agency, we have to decide whether the overall benefits outweigh the significant environmental impacts in this document. vice president miguel: i am happy that so many speakers talked to the legal ramifications of this, because i am not going to. there were a lot of changes from 2006 to 2011. in my mind, there are going to be changes before the project is finished. what i am dealing with right now is an eir. is it adequate? is it accurate? is it complete? does it cover any of the changes that have been brought forth? anything that comes to the planning commission of any size, particularly something of this size and this important -- if you t

they upheld that ceqa appeal meaning this site similar to it should be exempt under ceqa and there are no cumulative effects or master plan effects that should be considered on the cell by cell basis and the planning department reached out the industry in terms of how to work bet we are the city and in response to the board president chiu's request and t-mobile looks forward to doing that and encourage you to focus on the one building permit and not take discretionary review. thank you very much. >> speakers in support of the project sponsor. [call i [calling speakers] is there any public comment in support of project sponsor? i called all those names and people should be coming up to the mike. we do have a 5:00 time certain item and we are trying to get through this item. and if you get up, start speaking, please. >> hi. i am a native san francisco resident and born and raised and actually born in north beach. i am a real estate professional and i think it's very important that you put up as many cell towers as needed and as possible and whatnot just due to the fact