ab q t that measure reads pay a mitigation fee for the air qualify management division 2345u6789, 20118 thousand plus for the per year we want to change that not to exceed to no less than and we have discussed it change with the project sponsor and the project sponsor has indicated agreeable to that change the mitigation measure is patricia incorporates to a late comment letter we've received from the bay area air quality management that letter and the response to that letter is obtained in the packet we've distributed we didn't make that hang to the measure that was on oversight it focused on the amount of the offset mitigation fee and the planning department staff and air quality in house consultants are ongoing discussion with the district about, about the amount of the fee for the draft wasn't we're continuing those discussions and clearly have not reached a final agreement we will continue those discussions we will very much like to reach on agreement with the air district on a workable ouch set fee as a mitigation approach no time for this project but use for further projects havi

especially mitigation directly proportional to the impact that there mitigating.that said, the mitigation measure provides for further discussion with the air district and we intend to continue that discussion as we would like to reach a final agreement with the district around a workable offset mitigation measure we can apply both to the district as well as future projects. we've never done this before good we think is very promising innovation measure. we also modified the mitigation measure because of ongoing discussions and or the other so far over the amount to add a second option to that mitigation measure. that second option would allow project sponsor to directly fund and offset project by then enter into an agreement with the air district. we know that's feasible because we didn't that for america's cup. the americans cup eir the ports installed a offshore power or not offshore, a shoreside power facility which allows ships to come into the ports drydock facility to connect to grid power and shut down their engines. which made a significant missions reduc

especially mitigation directly proportional to the impact that there mitigating.that said, the mitigation measure provides for further discussion with the air district and we intend to continue that discussion as we would like to reach a final agreement with the district around a workable offset mitigation measure we can apply both to the district as well as future projects. we've never done this before good we think is very promising innovation measure. we also modified the mitigation measure because of ongoing discussions and or the other so far over the amount to add a second option to that mitigation measure. that second option would allow project sponsor to directly fund and offset project by then enter into an agreement with the air district. we know that's feasible because we didn't that for america's cup. the americans cup eir the ports installed a offshore power or not offshore, a shoreside power facility which allows ships to come into the ports drydock facility to connect to grid power and shut down their engines. which made a significant missions reduc

moving one million dollars to the yerba buena gardens anticipate the project sponsor from m-1 to mitigate for the shadows at yerba buena play circle an important place to play while this garden is not protected many advocates figure out to you insure a mitigation of the shadows on this site and setting a standard for non-rec and park spaces where they have shadow impact and the finally amendment? from the community that there is an early delivery of mary court west at the ground floor level to be guaranteed prior or prior to the construction of first building this park will be a benefit to the entire neighborhood it will asset this be phased in an earlier part of the project verse the latter so the open space can be enjoyed prior to the construction by the time certificate of preference to the paperwork and the hours will be open twenty-four hours. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to amend item 28 a second by supervisor yee colleagues without objection without objection those passes unanimously okay seeing no other names on the roster i will i'd like to entertain a motion on 26, 27 and

the california environmental quality act ceqa and the ceqa guidelines including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and in a statement of overriding consideration in connection with the development of time golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development at micro i mission bay blocks mission bay south redevelopment area discussion and action resolution number 702015 5 c approving the amendment 209s development in connection with the golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 712015. >> 5 d conditionally approving the basic concept seismic design for the golden gate warriors center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south with the agreement with fossil fuel, llc mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 722015. >> and 5 e informational presentation on the executive directors determination regarding uses as allowed secondary land use pursuant to the land bay

the california environmental quality act ceqa and the ceqa guidelines including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and in a statement of overriding consideration in connection with the development of time golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development at micro i mission bay blocks mission bay south redevelopment area discussion and action resolution number 702015 5 c approving the amendment 209s development in connection with the golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 712015. >> 5 d conditionally approving the basic concept seismic design for the golden gate warriors center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south with the agreement with fossil fuel, llc mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 722015. >> and 5 e informational presentation on the executive directors determination regarding uses as allowed secondary land use pursuant to the land bay

the california environmental quality act ceqa and the ceqa guidelines including the adoption of a mitigationing and reporting program and in a statement of overriding consideration in connection with the development of time golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development at micro i mission bay blocks mission bay south redevelopment area discussion and action resolution number 702015 5 c approving the amendment 209s development in connection with the golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 712015. >> 5 d conditionally approving the basic concept seismic design for the golden gate warriors center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south with the agreement with fossil fuel, llc mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 722015. >> and 5 e informational presentation on the executive directors determination regarding uses as allowed secondary land use pursuant to the land bay with the

the california environmental quality act ceqa and the ceqa guidelines including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and in a statement of overriding consideration in connection with the development of time golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development at micro i mission bay blocks mission bay south redevelopment area discussion and action resolution number 702015 5 c approving the amendment 209s development in connection with the golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 712015. >> 5 d conditionally approving the basic concept seismic design for the golden gate warriors center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south with the agreement with fossil fuel, llc mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 722015. >> and 5 e informational presentation on the executive directors determination regarding uses as allowed secondary land use pursuant to the land bay

especially mitigation directly proportional to the impact that there mitigating.t said, the mitigation measure provides for further discussion with the air district and we intend to continue that discussion as we would like to reach a final agreement with the district around a workable offset mitigation measure we can apply both to the district as well as future projects. we've never done this before good we think is very promising innovation measure. we also modified the mitigation measure because of ongoing discussions and or the other so far over the amount to add a second option to that mitigation measure. that second option would allow project sponsor to directly fund and offset project by then enter into an agreement with the air district. we know that's feasible because we didn't that for america's cup. the americans cup eir the ports installed a offshore power or not offshore, a shoreside power facility which allows ships to come into the ports drydock facility to connect to grid power and shut down their engines. which made a significant missions reductio

next, mitigation measure mno 40. i'm not. i'll measure. it's a lengthy but just note, we have corrected the measure to reference the police code and not the municipal code. that was just a typo. mitigation measure m-the commission offset. again i won't read the whole measure. we made an important change. this is regarding payment offset fee td area bay area quality management district to offset but check in the amount of not to exceed $18,030 per weighted time to no less than $18,030 per ton. then, finally, i correction. we incorrectly in the and art tea table into places state that the full text of the transportation manager plan is attached to the mrp that is not correct. a summary table is included as part of the [inaudible] not the full patch. that's all. >> thank you. let's hear from the members of the public. >> karen was followed by catherine sharp and then nick malone >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon commissioner. my name is karen was. i gently mission bay citizens advisory committee. i represent the mission bay cac i group cal

this risk we've identified the target with mitigation at a target rating with mitigation at 4 and so to that's a relatively moderate or low risk rating how have we gotten there we've taken certain actions this help us control the risk out to the bidding community with our offers that have allowed us to start to didn't think begin what the actual costs are contracting for those costs for those supplies at a fixed cost for the full volumes in the initial phase of the program so we'll completely control that costs that is how we end up with the mitigation steps with the lower risk rating so the commission we'll go through a series of risk and talk about the mitigations we're proposing to implement and what the guidelines are like them to provide to us as we manage of the program going forward. >> i mentioned this is one of the bigger risk in the program and that's because 75 excuse me. 70 percent of cost of the program is the cost of procuring the electrical supply to serve the customers. >> i mentioned the request for approval process that is helping us to mitigate that i want to talk

this risk we've identified the target with mitigation at a target rating with mitigation at 4 and so to that's a relatively moderate or low risk rating how have we gotten there we've taken certain actions this help us control the risk out to the bidding community with our offers that have allowed us to start to didn't think begin what the actual costs are contracting for those costs for those supplies at a fixed cost for the full volumes in the initial phase of the program so we'll completely control that costs that is how we end up with the mitigation steps with the lower risk rating so the commission we'll go through a series of risk and talk about the mitigations we're proposing to implement and what the guidelines are like them to provide to us as we manage of the program going forward. >> i mentioned this is one of the bigger risk in the program and that's because 75 excuse me. 70 percent of cost of the program is the cost of procuring the electrical supply to serve the customers. >> i mentioned the request for approval process that is helping us to mitigate that i want to talk

complete and very good it talked about one intersection that had impacts are significant and not mitigated by u but that is something that can be worked on as we go forward i think that the eir part is i had a few more comments on the project first of all, you know i'm very - nevertheless of u n are m u some people spoke to the fact that every project needs pdrs but my understanding the u m u you want to promote the pdrs and housing and mixed urban use there is a lot of provided on uber and so i think that concept every project to have both uses not something not analyzed sfierdz in the eastern neighborhoods and the other comment that was very important was that the present uses have been relocated within san francisco to 6000 third street which are the areas we want more pdrs lots of available space people with businesses that need to move products are much more interested in being in those areas their closer to the freeways and moving their product and lower rents and make sense to have the heavier pdrs use some of the smaller boutique pdr uses may be might fit by the way, that's my feel

especially mitigation directly proportional to the impact that there mitigating.t said, the mitigation measure provides for further discussion with the air district and we intend to continue that discussion as we would like to reach a final agreement with the district around a workable offset mitigation measure we can apply both to the district as well as future projects. we've never done this before good we think is very promising innovation measure. we also modified the mitigation measure because of ongoing discussions and or the other so far over the amount to add a second option to that mitigation measure. that second option would allow project sponsor to directly fund and offset project by then enter into an agreement with the air district. we know that's feasible because we didn't that for america's cup. the americans cup eir the ports installed a offshore power or not offshore, a shoreside power facility which allows ships to come into the ports drydock facility to connect to grid power and shut down their engines. which made a significant missions reductio

that those mitigation conditions found their way in as conditions that are recommended to us ; is thatorrect shelly. >> just to clarify those 5 mitigations are all require a certificate of appropriateness to be issued for the final project as it in the area of the civic center landmark district. >> okay. but no more explicit. >> no - >> having more detail. >> the by requiring the c of a impacts to the aesthetics and can remember resources will be mitigated. >> okay. so we selected this or you selected those particular conditions okay. fine which i think are valid they're good and but i was think and done with the evaluation so i agree with the team of what our staff has come up with now except for the trollies poles i thoughts it was interesting that they were not credit cards resources two of the in terms of the p pi e the history that have that somehow, i got the yfdz of a debate their sixth i agree walking down here van ness today coming to city hall i was thinking about them i knew they were part find discussion so it is hard for me as well but none taking ownership he like the ide

we understand it was in ceqa and we understand it was in the mitigation measures and in the ocii, but it was never stated explicitly that if the revenues fall short that that is what the warriors are going to be doing. so i will defer to the city attorney on this one, but i think it's a really key point on why we made the recommendation. >> thank you. i think you will find agreement on this entire panel and the full board. assuming that your language satisfis that concern, i think that is something i would certainly support. so at this point, colleagues unless questions, entertain a motion to accept that language into item no. 2. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar, take without objection [ gavel ] colleagues we have to revote on item 2 as amended to forward in item to the full board for recommendation to thedecember 8th board of supervisors meeting. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang without objection. madame clerk, do we have any other action. >> item 4 was also amended -- it was also recommended to the full board to thedecember 8th 8th meeting. >> there is no other acti

the california environmental quality act ceqa and the ceqa guidelines including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and in a statement of overriding consideration in connection with the development of time golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development at micro i mission bay blocks mission bay south redevelopment area discussion and action resolution number 702015 5 c approving the amendment 209s development in connection with the golden gate warriors event center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 712015. >> 5 d conditionally approving the basic concept seismic design for the golden gate warriors center and mixed use development on blocks 29 through 32 in mission bay south with the agreement with fossil fuel, llc mission bay south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 722015. >> and 5 e informational presentation on the executive directors determination regarding uses as allowed secondary land use pursuant to the land bay

that means mainly traffic and parking and i can see that can be mitigated. if they have covered it thoroughly and it sounds like they have done a lot work on it, it may be okay. as far as the fiscal impact is concerned there are two aspects that concerns us. one is what mr. rose brought up, you and that is are the revenue sources truly there for you? or is there some doubt about that? in other words, if history and experience is any guide, the revenues almost always are not as great as they are projected. and the costs tend to be more. so there is that concern. the other would be the degree of fixity as to your leverage over the developer. do you really have the legal need -- i mean the legal power to exact whatever it takes to cover those city costs? it sounds like mr. rose has raised one concern there. i would enforce that and say that really ought to be looked at rather carefully. i can see why a private developer wants to use municipal bond financing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the financier, namely the city should be at undue risk. thank you

that means mainly traffic and parking and i can see that can be mitigated. if they have covered it thoroughly and it sounds like they have done a lot work on it, it may be okay. as far as the fiscal impact is concerned there are two aspects that concerns us. one is what mr. rose brought up, you and that is are the revenue sources truly there for you? or is there some doubt about that? in other words, if history and experience is any guide, the revenues almost always are not as great as they are projected. and the costs tend to be more. so there is that concern. the other would be the degree of fixity as to your leverage over the developer. do you really have the legal need -- i mean the legal power to exact whatever it takes to cover those city costs? it sounds like mr. rose has raised one concern there. i would enforce that and say that really ought to be looked at rather carefully. i can see why a private developer wants to use municipal bond financing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the financier, namely the city should be at undue risk. thank you

that means mainly traffic and parking and i can see that can be mitigated. if they have covered it thoroughly and it sounds like they have done a lot work on it, it may be okay. as far as the fiscal impact is concerned there are two aspects that concerns us. one is what mr. rose brought up, you and that is are the revenue sources truly there for you? or is there some doubt about that? in other words, if history and experience is any guide, the revenues almost always are not as great as they are projected. and the costs tend to be more. so there is that concern. the other would be the degree of fixity as to your leverage over the developer. do you really have the legal need -- i mean the legal power to exact whatever it takes to cover those city costs? it sounds like mr. rose has raised one concern there. i would enforce that and say that really ought to be looked at rather carefully. i can see why a private developer wants to use municipal bond financing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the financier, namely the city should be at undue risk. thank you

ways to mitigate or change the project in ways to avoid effects the proposal the item before you does that changes the dir and the documents and the respond to comments no new information is available to change it more has the project sponsor said anything that lessons the effects it is the disclosure of the revised project explicit warrant anything the drs is sufficient and supervisors this is a desire by some in the community to find an alternative the rank of alternatives is reasonable for the impacts in relation to the impacts and the code compliant was developed by the staff not by the members of the community and the community development alternative is to be submitted for review and

measures we've developed for fiscal year relationship are mitigate that impact and meet the policy goals for covering the reserves we have a busy schedule the water revenues are down by two-thirds by whole receives and a number of one time savings from depth o debt refunding and one time close outs. >> the watermelon enterprise was similar the reduction in revenues and reduction in uses. >> as i mentioned things for the power enterprise look good and on time with the budget a number of restriction radio i reduction uses for the power enterprise and finally we're meeting all the minimal metrics health commission's. >> no problems or concerns. >> i think we're staying on top of the budget process and get through the winter we're going to see what the hydrologic situation looked like the questions will what the sate is going to do in response to the winter and sxhefrment for the demand for wastewater that's one of the final questions. >> great, thank you. >> i have a question under the debt service i see we're hitting our requirement but i'm curious to know why do we have a separate current

. >> here at the landfill we've had an odor mitigation plan that we've been working on for years. >> we get a lot of fresh refuse that comes in every day and we have odor misting stations set up in strategic locations throughout the landfill that can mitigate some of the fresh odors. >> in addition, republic says it invested heavily in this state-of-the-art recycling facility to help divert landfill waste. >> all of the material that we accept, over a thousand tons a day from the bay area, in california, comes into this facility and we divert it from the landfill...so we process the material and remove everything that is recyclable. >> so what is the output of this facility? >> 200,000 tons a year are being diverted out of landfills... our output is 400 tons of paper, 30 tons of plastic, 90 tons of glass and 30 tons of metal every day. >> despite diverting nearly 50 percent of their annual waste, the landfill is still growing and that causes some to look toward another possible solution. in sweden, a country that boasts 33 incinerators, trash is burned to create fuel in what's known

with sloan to help solve the noise they come into our home and did construction doing sound like mitigation issues in our bedroom and it was my understanding that was all under the direction of sulter but it never worked so the whole time sloan was in operation we had noise every time they were open i i'm asking the commission to really work with us since we've lived there for 5 years it is a significant impact on my life to tale with that every we understand a couple of weekends i pulled into the garage with one of my friends what is that noise people asked me why our houses is vibrator it is troubling to live in a house i'm distancing worried about what with my neighborhood is going to do how many aprons and what i have noise transition we're getting we're willing to work with them and work with sulter but as i think jeremy mentions they've not down the testing but we're not involved so i'm not sure thank you, ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> one final public comment unless there's additional - >> art. >> i'm joe thanks for getting the urinals off our streets awesome a big

which is to say that we're taking the money that could be spent on mitigation and on restoration and we're using it to suppress fires. and then there's not money left to mitigate or restore, which is why we talked about it's penny wise and pound foolish. that's what it is. ridiculous. we've got to stop it. nobody at the local level would ever accept this way of managing their resources and we shouldn't accept it either. i know it's fashionable now we're having a debate about what the role of the federal government should be. anybody who is downstream of the head waters in colorado need to care about the condition of the forests in colorado. we're in this together, we are one nation. i can't think of an issue where it's more true than here. so what we're doing right now i think fails the test in terms of fiscal responsibility and fails the test in terms of anybody's perspective of what federal lichl means. i hope we're going to be able to get this legislation passed. thank you for your wonderful testimony. mr. treese, it's been great to work with you over the past few years. the farm

mitigating risks across your business. >>> welcome back. many say the u.s. criminal justice system is in a state of crises. mass incarceration, overcriminalization, there's an outcry for change in the prison system. the stats are jaw dropping. since president ronald reagan waged a war on drugs, the u.s. prison population has quadrupled. while the united states makes up only 5% of the world's population, it's responsible for 25% of the world's prisoners. the reality is that 1 in 28 children has an incarcerated parent but for african-americans it's one in nine and poor families suffer the most. the criminal justice system is a $250 billion history with $80 that's three to four times more than what the government spends on education. there is, however, a slow but growing effort to reform the criminal justice system. earlier this year, california released nearly 3,000 inmates. in july, president obama commuted the sentences of 46 drug offenders. >> hello, everybody. >> and became the first sitting president to visit a federal correctional institution. in october

. >> must sue crepe and dave i mitigate recommend to accommodated for the repair of the windows to work with the sponsor in the future if at the choose to repair the windows rather than replacement we have not looked a proposal but in support of repair and trying to remain as much historical fabric as possible. >> would any members of the public of member of the public wish to comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, back to you. >> commissioners in the draft motion that was provided we have one error on the second condition it should read in the second sentence the penthouse should be minimally visible to strike the note in there. >> so commissioners, back to you. >> it looks great i have a question about the bulk head is that an option. >> my reasoning on was bulk head flush with the face of building and they'll cut out and move back for storefront recreating stuff seems like it is unnecessary i'd like to to me you're interrupting the rhythm of the bulk head i'd like to see that clean. >> for the rhythm of the bay commissioner pearlman. >> i'll move with the pe

. >> must sue crepe and dave i mitigate recommend to accommodated for the repair of the windows to work with the sponsor in the future if at the choose to repair the windows rather than replacement we have not looked a proposal but in support of repair and trying to remain as much historical fabric as possible. >> would any members of the public of member of the public wish to comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, back to you. >> commissioners in the draft motion that was provided we have one error on the second condition it should read in the second sentence the penthouse should be minimally visible to strike the note in there. >> so commissioners, back to you. >> it looks great i have a question about the bulk head is that an option. >> my reasoning on was bulk head flush with the face of building and they'll cut out and move back for storefront recreating stuff seems like it is unnecessary i'd like to to me you're interrupting the rhythm of the bulk head i'd like to see that clean. >> for the rhythm of the bay commissioner pearlman. >> i'll move with the pe

fire mitigation works.the record-setting haman wildfire in colorado raced across denver's foothills as an uncontrollable crown fire until it reached an area of the force that had been previously thinned when it dramatically and immediately dropped to a lesser intensity and manageable ground fire. the 2,014 farmville regional conservation partnership program created an innovative and competitive grant program to encourage and facilitate innovative watershed partnerships. the resilient federal forest actor builds on the good work of this committee and the 14 farmville by incentivizing collaboration with local governments by expediting permitting for qualifying projects. too often environmental permitting comes as an impediment for critical, time sensitive, on the ground actions. the farmville's authorization of categorical exclusion of insect infestation is very much appreciated and is being successfully employed in my district. these are good starts. the deteriorating conditions of the forest did not come ov

provide the updates regarding weekly remediation tests this is not listed in your motion or your mitigation measures as present to you. >> the construction as i said is supposed to last two years the eir suggests not required coordination with live oak or the united studies they'll not dictate it but they'll ask you add this language at page 38 of our motion the project sponsor shall consult with live oaks school and the international school academy to develop a plan with an ongoing dialogue finally to address the pedestrian issue there are a couple of things to be done to help to insure the safety of the neighborhood residents when it comes to pedestrians we ask this lack be added to require that the project sponsor will help fund and install a bulb out on mariposa and also install the visible flashing crosswalks leading if live okay to jackson park this is particularly necessary for the 23 hundred additional auto trips this project will bring thank you very much. >> okay. any other speakers? >> on this item. >> no? >> okay go ahead. >> good afternoon my name is nationally the dean of live

alternatives compared to that single project and then you're fully at easy to look at the amendment and mitigation and adopts them not within the financial eir you presented with a new project and if those happen then the mere analysis needs to happen. >> can you - and could you explain substancely what is anything's that is in the project as negotiated specifically what analysis is missing (multiple voices). >> they're not subject to the life analysis one scenario compared to one report and other within. >> instead of being general list the specific and i don't have - this is a big project we submitted probably oh, i'm - >> i'm sure (multiple voices). >> and because i want to understand you're showcasing argument. >> i understand the basic premise not has nothing to do with with detail by the application of how this project was handled to i'm not going to go into details when we are talking about big picture the big picture this project was not handled in a correct issue across the board to ceqa. >> can you name a large project in san francisco that met the standard here today. >> sure most proje

that means mainly traffic and parking and i can see that can be mitigated. if they have covered it thoroughly and it sounds like they have done a lot work on it, it may be okay. as far as the fiscal impact is concerned there are two aspects that concerns us. one is what mr. rose brought up, you and that is are the revenue sources truly there for you? or is there some doubt about that? in other words, if history and experience is any guide, the revenues almost always are not as great as they are projected. and the costs tend to be more. so there is that concern. the other would be the degree of fixity as to your leverage over the developer. do you really have the legal need -- i mean the legal power to exact whatever it takes to cover those city costs? it sounds like mr. rose has raised one concern there. i would enforce that and say that really ought to be looked at rather carefully. i can see why a private developer wants to use municipal bond financing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the financier, namely the city should be at undue risk. thank you

, how modest the amount of shadow the eir concluded a significant and you think yield impact not mitigate there is simply no debate so the appellant argues that the eir if analysis a sufficient number of alternative and requested a one hundred foot be analyzed as the eir as the department explained second didn't require an infinite number of alternatives and is subject to the real estate rule of reason that can mitigate the impacts of eir did present alternatives including the no project that retained the garage and discussed the potential shadow impacts at a variety of heights the potential of. >> a building is lowered but explain any building over one hundred feet in height casts a shadow again, the eir concluded the new shadows were cast on where people sit it can't be mitigated the project sponsor explain why they don't believe to tear down an 8 building structure to replace a 9 story structure and the architect explained the reasons for rejecting a shorter building it was not necessary to analyze an alternative with only that one story taller in order to to the decision makers about

that means mainly traffic and parking and i can see that can be mitigated. if they have covered it thoroughly and it sounds like they have done a lot work on it, it may be okay. as far as the fiscal impact is concerned there are two aspects that concerns us. one is what mr. rose brought up, you and that is are the revenue sources truly there for you? or is there some doubt about that? in other words, if history and experience is any guide, the revenues almost always are not as great as they are projected. and the costs tend to be more. so there is that concern. the other would be the degree of fixity as to your leverage over the developer. do you really have the legal need -- i mean the legal power to exact whatever it takes to cover those city costs? it sounds like mr. rose has raised one concern there. i would enforce that and say that really ought to be looked at rather carefully. i can see why a private developer wants to use municipal bond financing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the financier, namely the city should be at undue risk. thank you

as we look at the state and private programs and the mitigation efforts and the employment of the service for stores and others who are doing work for private land owners, they are so the impact outside the west as a result of these fires and with the budget is handled. it's a very significant impact. >> what more can we do on public lands since much of the inaction stems from lack of public land management? is their position on the reform bill that is before this committee? >> our focus is on private lands and that's where our focus is. but certainly the more management we have on both public and private lands, the more successful we are going to be in mitigating that only the risks but the exposure that we have for not just from the wildfire but also as we reported in our report we submitted to the committee actually to water as well. that's not excluded, exclusive to the west. >> had you taken a position on the? >> not that i know of, no. >> very good. what more can we do distinguish markets to help address these wildfires and other issues? >> you and kind of a market person, so i thin

next, mitigation measure mno 40. i'm not. i'll measure.'s a lengthy but just note, we have corrected the measure to reference the police code and not the municipal code. that was just a typo. mitigation measure m-the commission offset. again i won't read the whole measure. we made an important change. this is regarding payment offset fee td area bay area quality management district to offset but check in the amount of not to exceed $18,030 per weighted time to no less than $18,030 per ton. then, finally, i correction. we incorrectly in the and art tea table into places state that the full text of the transportation manager plan is attached to the mrp that is not correct. a summary table is included as part of the [inaudible] not the full patch. that's all. >> thank you. let's hear from the members of the public. >> karen was followed by catherine sharp and then nick malone >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon commissioner. my name is karen was. i gently mission bay citizens advisory committee. i represent the mission bay cac i group called

part of are mitigation programs which cause this not to happen. some individual programs are down 20%, early it was mentioned the borrowing program, that is a significant issue in terms of the effect on programs and some 40% of the service foresters have been laid off in the states. so my -- this isn't all about problems, part of it is about solutions and particularly focus on private lands here. first we recommend there's three solutions to consider, one is we just must fix how wild fire fighting is funded, obviously, congressional action is needed and has been introduced to treat like other federal emergency funding. secondly, we need funding to better enable the treatment of private family lands and do it on a landscape approach. this is simply words that say, we need to be collaborative and work with partners, u.s. fire service, conservation service, local and community agencies as well so that we have a coordinated landscape approach. third, certainly is about markets. that's near and dear to my heart. it starts with markets. we have a way of

it's not possible to mitigate that type of thing. i think that the petition clearly shows that the city of san francisco would like to foreclosure othe -- explore other options that would not involve a hotel. we have the opportunity here to do the right thing for the history and the arts of the city. let's not sell out to extreme commercialism and real estate greed that's crippling the city. >> thank you. >> good morning. we all know that the palace of fine arts is one of the oldest and most beloved historical inventory eyes in our -- venues in our city. it will be a crime for this to be disturbed, demolished or changed especially as dramatically as the concept of some sort of hotel. as a 23 year marine at resident, business owner and a preschool teacher, i feel very strongly that the palace must be preserved so the young people here and visitors from the world can continue to enjoy and learn in this historical setting. i have been fortunate enough to work at the palace, dance on the stage, be a member of a san francisco based halal.

amendment addresses one specific provision in the bill, section 1109, that modifies how congestion mitigation and air quality cmaq, funds can be used in nonattainment and maintenance areas. p.m. stands for par tick late matter. and the -- particulate matter. the purpose of the cmaq program is to fund transportation programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. all projects and programs that are eligible for cmaq funds must come from a conforming federal or state transportation plan. the program is designed to allow states to identify the right solution for their air quality challenges and utilize cmaq funds to implement them. without the ryan-napolitano amendment, the language in section 1109 may restrict states' discretion in identifying the most cost effective emission reduction technologies and effectively limit their options to only diesel retrofits. specifically, the priority consideration and use of funding provisions for the section seemingly restrict local authorities' ability to consider other alternative vehicle technologie

it's not possible to mitigate that type of thing. i think that the petition clearly shows that the city of san francisco would like to foreclosure othe -- explore other options that would not involve a hotel. we have the opportunity here to do the right thing for the history and the arts of the city. let's not sell out to extreme commercialism and real estate greed that's crippling the city. >> thank you. >> good morning. we all know that the palace of fine arts is one of the oldest and most beloved historical inventory eyes in our -- venues in our city. it will be a crime for this to be disturbed, demolished or changed especially as dramatically as the concept of some sort of hotel. as a 23 year marine at resident, business owner and a preschool teacher, i feel very strongly that the palace must be preserved so the young people here and visitors from the world can continue to enjoy and learn in this historical setting. i have been fortunate enough to work at the palace, dance on the stage, be a member of a san francisco based halal.

mitigation is say iing just the idea or hazard that it might be is going to increase the mitigation efforts. and that's what they're doing right now. i think it's a very smart thing to do. i think everybody should take heed with that. >> paul, isis has been claiming it was responsible for taking down this metrojet flight. they were initially dismissed, those claims, when the crash first happened on saturday. today they seem to be taken a bit more seriously. is the only thing that changed this possible interception of isis communications? >> that's the main thing that has changed, jake. and those statements put out by isis were very strange because at first it was just eight lines. i mean, this would be the biggest terror attack since 9/11, the most significant terror attack since lines not explaining how you do it. today they released an audiotape saying they weren't going to explain exactly how they did it. well, if they recruited an insider at sharm el sheikh airport, that might explain why they were being so coy. they didn't want to give their game away perhaps. >> david, what are the ch