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

so to kind of take it from the ceqa perspective, ceqa doesn't require we analyze social and economic impacts of a project except insofar as they may lead to indirectly environmental impacts related to the project. as i understood planning's response, they don't feel that even if that rent control restriction is removed that would necessarily lead to environmental impacts from the project. i'm paraphrasing here what planning has already stated. because the project does include replacement housing. and they've also stated that should that change in the project come to pass in the future, that would be analyzed in a further environmental review, as would any other project changes. we always understand that ceqa requires we analyze the project proposed in front of us at the time it's proposed for approval, and if the e.i.r. is certified, the project is approved, but in the future, changes either from the circumstanceses surrounding the project or in the project itself are created, then that can trigger further environmental review. so i am not sure if that -- president chiu: you're sayin

let me jump to ceqa. ceqa says that under the exemption, small structures include three residential homes, 2500 square feet, four commercial buildings, the environmental impacts that are much greater than the very simple facility. this is 7 feet back from the edge of the roof line. micro cells are allowed if we go through the process. this is provided by the planning director. this particular micro cell runs on two-what radios. -- two-watt radios. this is less than 300 watts. it is a very low -- -- a very low wattage facility. it is no frequency. a small facility and two antennas instead of nine or 12. berkeley, oakland, san jose are trying to push towards this. san francisco has been doing this for the last 15 years. the appellants are saying that because of cumulative a fax, you should not grant this exemption. i am saying that you should look at all of the antennas that will ever be installed. there were three that were at one time at the planning commission. one of them went through and one of them wa

spaces, the ceqa findings are correct.i think staff would like the commission to adopt a motion of intent on the c.u. approval so that staff could go back and correct and change some of the findings because the c.u. findings are based on the lower amounts of parking. if the commission approves the project as recommended by the department with the lower amount of parking, the ceqa findings, it's just a question of correcting the two paragraphs about parking as well as the title. so that you could -- the commission could just approve the ceqa findings with that direction, and that's easily correctable. and the c.u. motion could be adopted as is with the lower amounts of parking. commissioner antonini: and if the motion were to pass with the higher amount of parking, could that be voted on today? >> the commission could adopt a motion of intent. i think the staff prefers the commission adopt a motion of intent so that those findings could be changed to reflect the higher levels of parking. commissioner antonini: my motion for

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

issues, this is not about ceqa. they even confessed to as much in a letter. "this was dismissed as merely stating that the potential impact of the adjacent impact did not rise to a significant level of traffic impact and thus requires no further analysis." this commission's mandate is to shape development that is not necessarily impact major properties or communities. he is claiming that there is an impact on his client's property but not necessarily a ceqa impact. the real objections are not to the adequacy to the eir as an informational document but to the mechanical room located to the side of 350 mission. the design approvals have been appealed to the board of appeals. with that said, this appeal is before you and therefore we have to go through some of those objections for our records. it is contended that this is defective because it did not properly analyze the significant impact with the exceptions that were granted. exceptions such as these are routinely granted, in this case with a 7-0 vote. this applies 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

to be inserted into the preamble of the motion immediately after the ceqa determination, any disuvings concerns related to noise and order in this motion is not an indication of an impact under saquabecause ceqa addresses an impact under a particular framework. even though noise and odor eiveses in the neighborhood are not considered to be significant under ceqa, the commission wishes to address areas of concern on the neighbors and seek to reduce potential concerns to the neighborhoods. the commission finds that the proposed conditions of approval to address concerns related to noise and odor do not constitute mitigation measures under ceqa, rather, they seek to address an area of concern to the neighbors and reduce any potential noise or odor or nuisances in the area. the proposed project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. the proposed project would rezittlize a vacant store front along the valencia corridor. it promotes the growth of an existing small business. given the findings discussed, staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization with the

that's what ceqa requires. i think those are the main points. the fact that these are urban aesthetics, those are covered by seek washing the pocket protector's case clearly holds that. there's no question that there are potential environmental impacts so it's only fair to this board that you consider all of those things before this project is approved. it hasn't been before the planning commission. the at&t knows where it wants to put these boxes. i remember the last thing i wanted to say. the burden on your staff and this city to have each individual box go through a full analysis on its own is significant. it makes sense. look at these all together, think about the criteria, adopt mitigation measures whambings needs to be done to -- measures, whatever needs to be done. look at it all at once and then of course everyone supports the upgrade of this utility and the service that is being proposed. but it can't be done on a categorical exemption. thank you, unless there are questions. president chiu: thank you. supervisor wiener: hi. so, there ar

that's a violation of ceqa. and there's been millions -- there's been hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the city and other agencies and it's preapproving the project before the certifications that we're seeking here today. it's not right. and basically -- [bell ringing] president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment on the environmental impact report? secretary avery: madam president, before the next speaker comes out, and we are setting up the overflow and all of you who are standing, all of you who are sitting on the floor, you have to go to 408 and now that overflow is set up, we will not continue until you have left this room. 408. right down the hall. president olague: if you handed in a speaker card, we will be calling you to speak. secretary avery: if i can announce for all of those who had to leave the room, there is the exact same setup in this room as is in this room and they will be able to monitor exactly what is happening and if they turned in cards and their name is cal

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

private views from the side elevation are not protected by ceqa or the general plan. general public views are protected by private or not. this might not be a desirable change but this is not a significant impact, therefore it did not need to address it as such. this is also not a significant impact and is no different than the dents downtown core. in fact, this is a corner building and opened elevations on the northeast and south. they have criticized the eir for considering a range of alternatives. it would be impossible to analyze and responsibilities. it is directed that a reasonable range of alternatives be considered. the purpose is to identify the alternatives that reduce significant impact. that analysis has been more than adequately completed. it is claimed that it requires the analysis of an outside alternative but ceqa does not say that. the transit center is the ideal place to put a new office building. it complains that this did not contain a meaningful adoption of the regulatory plans. this is also correct. there are 13 pages of discussion of at least 10

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

related to its action to approve the proposed project including the separate findings required by ceqa guidelines section 15091. these findings are not the subject of appeal before the board because they are legally required project entitlement findings and not findings related to the adequacy of the environmental review. an appeal of the planning commission certification is related to issues of the accuracy and objectives of the final e.i.r. objectiveness of the final e.i.r., including but not limited to the sufficiency of the e.i.r. as an informational document and the correctness of the conclusions. the issues raised on the adequacy of the e.i.r. relate primarily to the following, the description of the proposed project, the potential loss of rent-controlled housing, traffic and transit impacts and their mitigation, the adequacy of the e.i.r. alternatives relating to historic resources, the adequacy of mitigation for identified historic resource impacts, the accuracy of the cumulative analysis performed for the e.i.r. or potential seismic hazards or high gas line hazards. the appeal

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

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

those are the magic words that trigger ceqa. the resolutions you have to locate and improve boxes based on minimizing pedestrian safety, reducing is that the impact, protecting historic neighborhoods -- all the things in those regulations are not exempt from ceqa. those are discretionary considerations that beg for environmental review. i believe in a test is inadequate. we are here and would like to present to this board. we do believe the notice appears on the face to not give the public understanding of what was being considered here today. supervisor avalos: actually, you asked my question. it was answered. president chiu: thank you. supervisor weiner: with respect to the brown act, i do not know if it matters, but in terms of -- the agenda is not in a vacuum. their attachments to the agenda, hyperlinks on the website. and i believe they are in the binder in the clerk's office. that includes all the documentation from the planning department, which made crystal clear this was about 726 boxes. so i am not sure. i am not an ex

it is claimed that it requires the analysis of an outside alternative but ceqa does not say that. the transit center is the ideal place to put a new office building. it complains that this did not contain a meaningful adoption of the regulatory plans. this is also correct. there are 13 pages of discussion of at least 10 plants including the planning code. these are thousands of pages long. the summary is all that is required in the eir. the competing alternatives and approving the project, there is no question that they had all of the questions that they needed and that is what the eir is supposed to do under ceqa. we urge you to allow the appellants design objections to be heard next week at the board of appeals where they belong. thank you. >> thank you. are there any members of the public which wish to speak on behalf of the real party in interest, the project sponsor? ok, i will ask the public if you could step up for 8 or bottle -- step up for a rebuttal. >> and almost 20 minutes we heard from the planning department and mr. rubin, i did not hear any where that noise is quant

and you need to mitigate adverse effects to be a ceqa alternative. so i would say in closing that this e.i.r. is thorough and complete. there are issues that i think have been raced that are genuine issues, that deserve your full consideration. some of those might be what supervisor mar raised about how you feel about this place and whether or not you feel comfortable with this. whether you want to join this issue of whether or not this project is a good idea for the city, the region, for our society and the future, if you think infill development in a sustainable fashion in a city that's close to jobs is the right thing to do, i would urge you to do the right thing under ceqa, the certify these e.i.r.'s, deny the appeals and have a full discussion at the project. thank you very much. i appreciate your time this evening. >> colleagues, any questions to the representative from the project sponsor? ok, seeing none, at this time, if i could -- i have a lot of speaker cards and i do note there is an overflow crowd. we will be calling folks who have provi

that's not normally how we review our projects under ceqa and san francisco. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. president chiu: supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: hi, ok. since a large part of the conversation that we're engaging in right now deals with general issues around housing and population, specifically displacement, i was curious to know if the analysis -- did the analysis find that any significant environmental impacts might arise due to socioeconomic changes brought on by the proposed project? did the analysis find any significant environmental illustrate pictures that might arise due to the social and economic changes? >> the environmental analysis was on the physical and environmental impacts of the project. and we did not go from the other direction and try to figure out what the socioeconomic impacts would be that related to those effects. supervisor cohen: is that a normal -- >> yes. supervisor cohen: thank you. president chiu: supervisor kim [supervisor kim: thank you. i had some questions about the phasing -- or the construction phases. just t