it did not get the ceqa review. under guidelines like this, maybe the theater would not have been saved, so i am really concerned about this. i would like to see this not move forward. thank you. chair maxwell: nan and paul. >> oh, my name is na. i did try to go through the 60- page file. it struck me that it had a lot of dodgy language. maybe somebody could have done an executive summary so these are easier to understand. i cannot understand that people are not having the same problem i am having. it is very complicated. it is very difficult to sort out. i will read you a message that i sent to members of the committee in regards to today's hearing. i urge leann used to not do this using mcginley alter the balance between public and private interests -- i urge land-useur -- i urged land use to not do this altering the balance between public and private interests. somehow, it strikes me that this is being slipped in here in a manner -- it should be dealt with as somewhat of a separate issue. i got hung up on this by

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

president miguel: right, the ceqa findings. and we have the office allocation requirements, which should be no problem at all. and then the reclassification of the height, i believe, the 309 compliance on the three areas where there are exceptions, and then the remapping. >> i'll second. president miguel: commissioner olague. commissioner olague: i was kinds of hoping -- it's clear to me that we all want to approve some project on that site. i do appreciate the work that the department has done. i think it's a huge improvement over what was at the table originally, quite frankly, even though it might have caused some inconvenience to a project sponsor. but i would like to support the comments of commissioner moore. and i don't know if that would be to ask for a continuance so that maybe we could see some additional work on the silhouette of the building or what, but -- is that a motion? >> yeah, that's a motion to continue for a couple of weeks. >> i second that. >> how many? >> i don't know how long it would take to sort of pr

>> 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

the ceqa findings have to be the first item that you approve. so you rescinded 12-a because it has to come after the ceqa findings. now with the revote it will be after. commissioner moore: i should have said yes because obviously -- i am sorry. ok. >> now 12-a is last. your ceqa finding has already been taken. on the approval for 12-a. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> again, that's approved, 6-1. thank you. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. president miguel: we are now at general public comment on items not on the agenda. is there anyone for nonagendaized public comment? if not, public comment is closed. we will take a 15-minute break. before we go into executive session. >> thank you. >> public comment that i'd like to make. may i? i'd like to make a public comment that's not on the agenda. >> we have closed public comment and we're in recess at the moment. there is no public co

clerk: this puts us on the regular calendar, item 9, bay area, air quality management district, ceqa air qualiy guidelines update. >> good afternoon vice president oh log go and members of the commission, i am jessica rang of the planning department. i came to you last december and came to you on the update process, knew that the air district has considered this significant, this is to inform the impact. there's also additional copies over on the table over there, and this presentation is also posted on the website. and will be available at the end of the presentation. today's presentation will provide you with an overview of the bay area water quality management district in ceqa review, it focuses on the air threshold of significance adopted this june of this year, although the thresholds have been adopted, there is an interim period here where the methodology for air quality anall size will be refined. today i am going to touch on the three most notable changes, and those are new threshold of significance for greenhouse gas, threshold for community health risk ex, as well as thresh

what you can expect is more of the ceqa documents will include an analysis of health risks. the methodology for health risk analysis is a development in process and will rely on the materials still forthcoming from the air district. we are also concerned about the availability of feasible mitigation members. and there's a poteni

what you can expect is more of the ceqa documents will include an analysis of health risks. the methodology for health risk analysis is a development in process and will rely on the materials still forthcoming from the air district. we are also concerned about the availability of feasible mitigation members. and there's a potential that because of these concerned, these thresholds could push development to suburban locations, or outside the city unintentionally. as i have noted here, the thresholds for health risks for new receptors are not anticipated to be implemented until january 2011 and the reasons for the delayed implementation is so that the air district can develop a more accurate data base of the stationary sources and so that cities and counties can development a community risk reduction plan. the concept of a community risk

what you can expect is more of the ceqa documents will include an analysis of health risks. the methodology for health risk analysis is a development in process and will rely on the materials still forthcoming from wee air district.

what you can expect is more of the ceqa documents will include an analysis of health risks.he methodology for health risk analysis is a development in process and will rely on the materials still forthcoming from the air district. we are also concerned about the availability of feasible mitigation members. and there's a potential that because of these concerned, these thresholds could push development to suburban locations, or outside the city unintentionally. as i have noted here, the thresholds for health riskso

2010-2011 $640,000, due to increases as police department services here the planning department for ceqa review, and the workers' compensation budget because of higher than anticipated cost the entire year. these increases were offset by reductions in work orders. the annual budget, which were allocated on projects, was a very small net change of $6,000. as you will see on page 5 of the staff report, funding for architectural and engineering consulting services and the computerized maintenance management project was reduced and the storm water control projects and hearing had project were increase. the fiscal year 2010-fiscal year 2012 operating budget decreased. this is a result of the changes i described, excluding the work orders. for the capital budget, appropriations decreased $58.1 million, and this is a result of the decision for the port to secure the park bonds project funding to a supplemental appropriation this year. instead, it is part of the budget process. this will allow the board of supervisors to more carefully review the recreation and parks department, and reports port

i guess i am the only one so far in favor of this, at least in favor of the time period to appeal ceqa determination after the planning division. this is not pro-developer. this is pro-family. most of the actual exemptions go to families who are bringing in their elderly parents or having additional children, and homes tend to be small. one example, but not the only, and i speak for a lot of my former clients. my client, when she was pregnant, three months later, she found herself in front of the discretionary review at the planning commission. the planning commission unanimously approved. she spent a great deal of money on building permits, consultant fees. all she wanted to do was add a one-bedroom to create a 400- square-foot third floor. after spending all that money on the developing, someone filed an appeal to the board of appeals, and the day before that hearing -- and this is typical -- a categorical extension appeal was made to the board of supervisors. i have never understood but at least 1/3 of the cases i have seen, it is the day before the board of appeals hearing that one

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

other issues involved ceqa violations, said the general plan violations, general street plan violations, and one thing i really would like to talk about, since we do not have much time but 48 seconds is there is a real -- rare species at the davis campus, and according to ceqa, this web button to eliminate a plant, reduce the number of a rare or endangered plant or animal, and is considered rare, and i submit to you my full report. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. i stay at the hotel just two blocks away. i understand the need for progress as far as trying to create jobs and everything, but we also have to think about the health and safety of the people that live within the community, and if we increase the traffic, you will aggravate the asthma and heart conditions of people who already have these existing illnesses. as far as being productive, if they would hire from the same community in which they are building, then the community would also benefit, but what is the sense of earning money in the community if you cannot go to the hospital which y

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 k

therefore, it is not the historic resources consistent with ceqa. other individual resources. this was described and included in the eir. response documents. the appellant has asserted that this is flawed because basing this on square footage of the land use and not on supply, the potential trips generator not accurately calculated. the methodology is a nationally recognized standard. this would result in the same sized structure and the same number of trips realized in the transportation analysis but this is not the same analysis for all of the alternatives. this is based on likely visitor and patient choices given the availability of transit choices in the area. the appellants assert that we did not adequately address pedestrian bicycle safety. these issues were responded to it in the comments. this includes pedestrian and bicycle council. in addition, the perspective protect tenants are supposed to be value-based retailer's. of the general plan objectives and policies, in general we discourage the placement of parking in the downtown core. the do

this resolution adopts ceqa findings. we came to you in 2006 asking approval to accept the grant. at that time, you did approve of us to do that. that was with the exception of having us come back after we completed the environmental review. we are here today because we have completed the ceqa approval for the project and are back to ask for your approval to extend this grant. we are excited to move forward with this project which would minimize future flooding in the caesar chavis -- caesesar chave area. >> this resolution would simply approve an expenditure you authorized of $477,900 in grant funds from the u.s. epa. those funds would reimburse the puc for a similar amount from waste water revenue bond fund money, which the board of supervisors previously appropriated. we recommend you approve this resolution. chairperson avalos: thanks, mr. rose. public comment on item 7? no public comment. motion from supervisor mirkarimi for approval. that will go to the full board with the recommendation. if it could call items 8 through 10. >> item 8, resolution authorizing the san francisc

both to address the ceqa issue with enough lead time and because this is absolutely critical to what in my minds is one of the most important points of this program is the job-creation component. so without knowing where the opportunities for the jobs are, i think it's a lot more difficult to really create the excitement around the job creation, when right now it's still an on-the-market program. if we had done the inventory last year with the last r.f.p. and it took a year, we'd have it right now. so if we can get that ball rolling with respect to the r.f.o. -- is that the right acronym? -- to know the area of opportunities, that would be great. secondly is that i apologize. i jetted from the office without the r.f.p. but there's some language that says all bidders should be aware of the expectations to deliver community benefits with respect to the r.f.o. when the projects go out. can we also add that -- very small language added to say, also be aware of the city's local hiring requirements. so delivery of community benefits in compliance with the city's local hiring policies would

the project failed to meet the ceqa requirements. but this involves is an alteration of the structure constructed 50 or more years ago. this is a historical structure which contributes to the historical district. would it results in over 40 feet? this requires a shadow study. the applicant failed to complete the packet dated july 29th, 2009, which states that all exterior alterations must comply with the policies and guidelines. this requires a 30-day notification and notices and considers a position and location facing the subject property. finally, the applicant never submitted the plan to the neighborhood association of which i am a member. the application is not sufficient and they did not describe all of the work to be performed. a rigorous review for comments. thank you. >> thinking -- thank you. >> do you have specific examples? >> the details are that the applicant would not give permission. i have been reviewing the plans and what i think it's happened is that one of the kitchen structures, kitchen appliance has been changed