first action you take needs to include the ceqa findings. you cannot take any approval actions without the ceqa findings being adopted as part of that first motion. and your first motion was on item a and you did not include the ceqa findings in that. i would ask the commission if it would rescind its vote on item a and revote including the ceqa find sogs that it's clear that that was taken. you did adopt -- president miguel: we don't have to do all of them. >> you don't have to do all of them over again. if you would please rescind your vote on item a and indicate that you did take adopt the ceqa findings and by reference those are adopted with regard to all of the action you're taking. president miguel: move to rescind item a. >> on the motion to rescind. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passed 6-1. president miguel: so now we'll move to approve item a with the ceqa findings include

>> i am not prepared to say that ceqa would allow that carve out. it may be required for the foundation work. the board could not -- the entire review is on appeal. the report of supervisors would not have jurisdiction over that question. i do not believe this board would have jurisdiction to make waa ceqa finding. vice president goh: i am saying if we have respect to the life safety issue -- >> i do not believe that is allowed. commissioner garcia: i think the permit holder, ms. galvin, and mr. quinn, are well respected. i believe the department of building inspection has heard the concerns of this board and will give this some weight. i believe what is best suggested is to continue to september 22. if mr. quinn wants to withdraw the permit he is free to do that. i do not understand why we would want to overturn the project, to take that permit away. the other processes are still available to him. vice president goh: if there are not other comments, i would make a motion. commissioner fung: i have one, for the record. my request for the permit hist

supplemental comments deal with three primary ceqa topic areas, which were addressed in the eir documents. other issues relate to planning code exceptions as part of the committee, planning code section 309 project approval consideration. in terms of land use, the idea is located in the c30 district where office and retail uses are permitted. project would exceed those limits on the floors as well as not comply with the 150-foot height limit. it would be the subject of project approvals. the documents also indicate that the characters of the surrounding use, and number of residential and commercial users are located in the vicinity. eir found that an office use and zoning district that from its office uses would not result in a significant land use impact theory with respect to shadows, shadowseir concludes the study and concludes that it would not conflict with the sunlight ordinance. the ceqa significance criteria asks if a project with affect usability of publicly accessible open space or outdoor recreational facilities or other public uses. as you see in the comments and responses doc

there's no exception in the ceqa requirements. and mrs. hoefter hasn't pointed as to why there should be an analysis of shadows on sidewalks in the e.i.r. when it's down in the planning code. again, the e.i.r. talks extensively about shadows on parks, popos, recreational spaces downtown and all over the city and that's what every e.i.r. has done that deals with shadow issues. notwithstanding, the planning department has done a very good job at explaining background information in the e.i.r. about this exact issue. we believe the documents more than adequate should be certified today and we'd be happy to any -- answer any questions you have. thank you. president miguel: thank you. additional public comment thunderstorm item? -- under this item? >> i'm tom and i'm a resident of 246 second street. i guess one of the experiences i've had in looking at this 222 second street project, i've gotten to understand a little bit, obviously thoroughly, as a physicist, the whole planning process and the e.i.r. process. and one of the things i think that

to the city attorney's office, is it an issue or problem that the ceqa findings are not called out on the calendar as an agenda item? i was just wondering because they are always -- in the past, we have had similar cases where we have done the certification of the final and specific agenda item on ceqa findings, but i do not believe that is necessary. >> there is no requirement in ceqa that the findings be made as a stand-alone motion. in cases like this where you have a number of approvals, it makes it a little cleaner to have a stand alone motion that comes first, but it is certainly not a requirement has a law, as long as the commission makes it clear that when they take the first approval action, they are also adopting the ceqa findings that can be found in this draft motion. they are adopting those and adopting the mitigation moderating program and incorporating those by reference into the motion that they are making, that the commission is making. >> ok, thank you. second question is item 12a has to do with the annual office limitation program, under which we are going to vote w

project, the commission should adopt ceqa findings and the mmrp as an attachment. these findings were provided to you in hard copy and were available to the public at time of publication of staff reports but really should not necessarily be adopted as a stand-alone item. again, if the project is inclined to be approved by this commission, these findings and the mmrp should be adopted as part of the case as an attachment, and i would request direct staff to refer to this attachment any corporate the findings by reference. in conclusion, staff recommends approval of the projects for a number of reasons. the project would add substantial offices, retail space, and publicly accessible open space in the downtown corridor. the project is well-designed and suited for an intense and urban context, that is characterized by an eclectic mix of buildings, skills, an architectural style. product would replace an existing service parking lot with a use that would reinforce and activate and has employees that will add to the vitality of the area. the project is designed to the go

part of a team that anddpw -- port and dpw project team, but it needs environmental review under ceqa, and staff will need help to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project. i voted to do this, on behalf of the court, a r issues andfq -- of the port, issues an rfq, and dpw received responses from four qualified teams. in june, the panel composed of two staff members from the port to planning and one from dpw evaluate proposals, it to be the teams, and unanimously rank environmental sciences as its as the highest. accordingly, staff seeks to -- seeks authorization from the port commission to award a contract for environmental review services in the amount not to exceed $851,000 -- $851,543. esa would be the lead consultant of the team. they have worked on a number projects, such as the bryan st. pier project, so they know about cruise terminals, and they also worked on the mills project so they know the site. from our perspective, these people are perfect for this particular project. as part of their team, there are sub consultants, which include environ, and they will

ceqa applies to any action that may have a significant environmental impact. it is important that environmental review occur as early as possible. it's not just a prow forma rubber stamp of a project that was already approved. the california supreme court recently ruled that actions short of an official project may be illegal if they move the project momentum significantly forward. the city of san francisco has, in my view, violated ceqa and allowing the planning commission to adopt a resolution that "recognizes the design principles and recommendations of the northeast embark der row study for new development in this area." without first satisfying an a.i.r., it has guidelines for site design, articulation and quality materials based on the planning commission's "recognition" of the study. the port of san francisco to consider the principles and recommendations in the study as part of its review of proposals and improvements. after that happened, a revised application for the eight washington project incorporated increased heights recommended by the study. th

ceqa says this is accurate and complete. i think we have made some comments here as to completeness, certainly, and references to its accuracy, but on the whole, at this point, i do not see anything drastically wrong with it. the items that have been mentioned are covered before we get the final document approval. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i remind the public that the comment time is open until august 10. if there are additional comments that you wish to submit in writing or if someone has not had the opportunity to come today, please get that in by the 10th. as you know, the process will be comments and responses that will come forth, coupled with the eir, and that will make the final environmental impact report in the future. president miguel: that final document, the present draft eir plus the comments and responses document will be voted upon by this commission at that time. that time cannot be ascertained now because it would depend on the amount of time it takes for the staff to respond to all of th

so that wouldn't need to go through a full ceqa process. also associated with the resource substitution component of the request for offer process, clarifying that both the city and the supplier have an obligation to ensuring that the cost of doing any resource substitution, that there's an obligation and the costs associated would be minimal. the last and most notable one that we had the greatest amount of constructive discussion about was about the duration of the contract term. given the r.f.o. process and the idea that we would be asking the supplier to be, for whatever term the contract is for, buying the full amount of energy that would be needed over that duration for a specified price, and the layering in of resources over different durations that we managed through the city process and working with the supplier to substitute those in and out. there is a tension between the desire of having a long-term fixed price, a price that's known or be able to market to customers and having a stable relationship with the supplier, versus also