the ceqa review that they did was for 726 boxes. the letter that we receive from at&t agrees that there will be an initial rollout -- an initial rollout that would be limited to 495 and there would be an additional process to install additional boxes up to what was reviewed under the environmental analysis, 726 boxes, so the application is still 726 boxes, and theceq -- the ceqa review is for all of those. they looked at having the boxes in the city. president chiu: ok, so you are asking what we are being asked today is 495, but they would be up to 7 hotter 26 boxes at some later date? -- 726 boxes at a later date could >> that is correct treat this is an initial rollout. president chiu: i do not feel comfortable that we have a full understanding of the cumulative impact of the utility's here and the various mitigation efforts it can have. i continue to wonder whether it is possible to place this equipment on public property and continue to wonder how this technology has been evolving. i know this has been a six-year alternative --

the completion of the entitlement and ceqa process. it is also beyond dispute that this has been carried out pursuant to those housing guidelines, and those facts create an inference of a larger intend to use this model to create additional affordable housing opportunities for the city along these lines. as such, there should be an additional analysis with regard to the project aspect of this particular plan. finally, i would like to point out to the commissioners, the issues raised in the environmental letter attached to our appeal. they addressed several issues related to noise and health. geotechnical issues and growth in dues meant that i think particularly persuasive. at the commissioners have any questions, i am happy to address them. otherwise i will see you -- [inaudible] thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am charles. [unintelligible] i am san francisco resident. i have been here 61 years, as my grandparents and parents so lived here. since i first became aware of this project year-ago in april, april 2010, there ha

there are 2 b was separate issues, the ceqa issue and the permiting issue.y are completely separate and independent issues. regardless of what happens with ceqa, which can eventually get to it permitting process. the law is that dpw will issue a permit. i think it will be sent to a hearing officer and then appealed to the board of appeals for the ultimate say. but at&t has indicated, since at&t is the one that needs to apply for a particular site, that at&t as a matter of respect would defer to supervisors in terms of selecting are not selecting a site. i believe that at&t does have a particular letter of intent or mou, would everyone to call it. with individual supervisors, it would memorialize that in writing. supervisor mirkarimi: what piques my interest is if we reflect on the normal course of action that with an exemption does not require eir, when it occurs for one location, typically it is a ceqa response for all locations. i highly doubt that through any ceqa process there would be this sort of selective evaluation. i think that in effect is what at&

that raises an air quality issue that i believe is appropriately addressed by ceqa. let me also state that although the project sponsor has said there will be 25 units, i am unaware that the project sponsor has declared there will only be 25 residents. and i believe this is an extremely important distinction that should be fully vetted, both in the ceqa process and considered as a conditional use restriction. commissioner antonini: thank you, sir. >> finally, i would like to see the staging area for construction, if there is no ingress or egress, there will be staging concerns during construction. there will be on the highway or nearby, and caltrans should have been notified. commissioner antonini: thank you. president olague: staff, did you want to comment? commissioner moore: i would like to indicate that the commission has not found substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a significant environmental effect may occur as a result of the project that would warrant the preparation of an eir. >> accepted. commissioner moore: are we also incorporating the f

and show that engaged in the ceqa process. so we submitted comments and at that time we had 24 groups and now we have more than 30 groups and are doing our best to combine our concerns. i want to thank your staff, particularly joy for meeting with us regularly and sharing as much information as possible and we, in turn, are sharing our expertise on issues like traffic, neighborhood impacts, historic resources, water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitats and how those might be impacted and address tim pact. we look forward to continue working with them in this very tight timeline and look forward to having a successful event that's repeated on a regular basis. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am terry shore, program director for restoration network. and we are very interested in this project. and we view in general support the america's cup coming to san francisco and the sustainable development of the port and waterfront and that is why we're here. there are a few things i wanted to bring to the attention of a

we were working diligently to come up with the details about the construction improvements and the ceqa analysis for the races, there are discussions underway about which of those kinds of improvements would also be credited towards long-term development of those sites as well. then we jump down to the southern waterfront. pier 80 and in bayview hunter point area with the existing cargo terminal at the team base location if the construction is not completed or the facilities for 2012 or 2013 and to accommodate and the racing yacht mooring while also accommodating the cargo activity that occurs through the peer. that would still be our company and it's been a good working relationship to manage those two different kinds of operations. clearly we have the e.i.r. coming out next week. but the process while the ceqa is underway and the understanding from the environmental review documents, what is supplemental information that needs to come and how does that stack up with the permitting that will be required to occur once the ceqa process and in some cases the national environmental policy

i think we are looking at how best to do that in the context of the ceqa process, but they have been very helpful in being a productive part of the conversation. what we would like to do -- they gave a very detailed set of comments in the detailed preparation that we've taken close to hurt in working through the project description, and i think we will continue to work to try to find solutions with them before giving documents out that seem to be filed so people feel like they're being heard in there is an engagement there. -- and there is an engagement there. but may go back to the slide presentation. -- let me go back to the slide presentation. moving to the calls -- the plans i talked about earlier. there are nine of them. these are set forth in the first two bullets. this was the best way to convey the information. the initial draft of the people can come security plan, wis management plan, advertising plans, submit to authority and posted on the web site at the end of march. the work force development, youth development, and lead sustainable even management plans will be due at

we have an appeal on ceqa. >> it is not an appeal. it is the adoption of the ceqa. >they were called up together. >> commissioner moore: i would make a motion for part and and . >> second. >> if i could respond to the comments about the transit and the heights exceptions. there is a 20% exception. there is a -- about the transit on 16th street. it is envisioned as a brt so that should address the transit concerns. the 22, you cannot get the 20 to two blocks away. it sure what. >> president olague: commissioner sugaya? >> commissioner sugaya: just to follow up on that. for any purpose? >> basically for any purses than -- purpose that is listed in the code for mechanical equipment, skylights, whenever an exception. 20% total. -- what ever it exception. 20% total. -- whenever exceptiatever excep. >> commissioner sugaya: it calls for various unit mixes -- i think that is the perspective i am coming from. i realize the and lasalso becaue of the drive to provide affordable housing, there are requirements. if this was market driven, we would not have affordable housing at

i think it has been related to the ceqa process. i think the gun went off in september 31, and we started from go to say how do we build a picture of what we are proposing? the event authority has brought on some great local professionals and consultants to help them in the process, and they brought a great vision to what they want to bring to the locations. there has been a lot of back- and-forth, a lot of thoughtful engagement. i think it will not stop the process. obviously we have the permits of the federal agencies that will require an additional set of interest that we need to take into account, but i think we have a very good partner that is very motivated to deliver on division here. supervisor campos: with respect to the work force development plan, which president to referenchiu reference, the oblin is beyond the completion of the ceqa review is that the local fire plan has to be developed, and there are specific things that are required to be included or addressed in the plan, including work around it infrastructure, even

these are the ceqa fees. the legislation as correcting oversight when we amended the fis last year. we added a wireless telecommunications facility fee and payment plan feet. section 3122 allows the controller's office to adjust the ceqa fees, and that section was not amended to include those two new fees, so this proposed legislation makes that correction. additionally, it applies the cpi for next year. item seven is amending the planning code fees. primarily, this ordinance proposes to put a cap on fees that are based on construction costs so that the initial intake fee does not exceed 50% of the cost of the construction. this is primarily to address small, over the counter projects where the fee oftentimes is equal to or sometimes even greater than the cost of the construction project. and then also, it applies to 2.07 cpi increase. supervisor chu: thank you very much. any questions from the committee on these items? why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, i believe the department has stated that they concur with the $113,608, and i

clearly they do not understand that ceqa has to the evaluate alternatives. they make a point of talking about entitlements running with the land, which we know is the case, but so do the obligations. i think that they do not quite get that part of the. there is confusion about whether public funds were involved. we point out that any of these things that are afforded to the developers, they have to provide sequentially for those to go forward. i think it is really well done. i think it is very quick. supervisor moore: i think it comes back around to -- commissioner moore: i think it comes back to what i was saying before. i personally believe that that does not speak with my language. i do not speak that way. i think we can do better. >> yes, this is a broader question. what power does the grand jury have? we get our response and they just accept it? commissioner antonini: if i may. [laughter] the grand jury has the power of the bully pulpit. they have no means or authorization within the civil code to report this. if the grand jury, which will receive our r

and the redevelopment has none because they were all done before ceqa. there was an eir for a hotel that does not have an underground rock. parking is in the form of a turnaround area. what you have a 420 carbon rod that has excavation of 38-40 feet. the entire area that i was looking for -- and there is no soil drainage. this is going to be excavating into a site that is going to have 110,000 cubic yards of soil. you will have sea level rises. the elevation his 0.95-0.91. it is basically at sea level. the sea level is rising. you're building a gigantic bathtub for a 420 car garages. the building has to keep the drug from popping up because the water level is so high. -- the garage from popping up because the water level is so high. there is no discussion of hydrology except for the archaeology of the old ships. you cannot find any of this. it is totally missing a discussion of the impact of building an underground garage with sea level rising and a water cable that is already very high. this is an environmental issue, just not there at all. no eir's hav

consideration of the adoption of ceqa findings. >> they're here today seeking authorization to propose construction of the 68-foot building, and ground retail, spaces, at 306 parking spaces. the project also seeks exception for exposure, off three loading, horizontal mass production, and the products complies with the first source hiring program. the product will convert to a site into a productive mixed use development that includes a significant site upgrades. the project's design is consistent with neighborhood character and is inappropriate and development for transitional development patterns. project will utilize controls and have the appropriate impact fees. additionally, the existing treaty rights of way has been planned for the development of a public park. on july 18, devoted to support the incoming agreement. his it is designed to include a play area, and of running, and landscaping. with that, i conclude my presentation. staff recommends approval with recommendations. president olague: project sponsor? >> i am the partner representative. the last time we were in front of th

utilities commission to place it in the right of they have determined of the equipment is exempt under ceqa.

utilities commission to place it in the right of they have determined of the equipment is exempt under ceqa. we received those permits on december 7, and are equal and is smaller than the existing equipment. we ask that you uphold this permit. vice president garcia: would nextg be compliant of the other standard were applied? >> yes. vice president garcia: who owns that other box? >> i found that no identification on that other box. some of those boxes are not marked. vice president garcia: thank you. >> thank you very much. we will hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners. i am from the department of public works. i need to provide a little history on this permit specifically. at the permit received an application from nextg networks ouon august 15. it was found this location is on a significant street, and on august 18 we submitted a referral to the planning department with plans and photo sims, the full package, so they could do an evaluation. in november of 2010, we received approval from the planning department with conditions. prior to that date, the health departm

process with multiple public hearings on this exact plan to build on the reservoir site, complying with ceqa. since then, there have been many hearings of the board of trustees, where this item has been noted for discussion numerous times, including the agreements that have been referenced by the city officials today, so there has been a very long public bidding process on the city college side to move forward with this. suddenly, it is important to note that the location of the performing arts student is in exactly the right place for the students. what it is for the vast majority of hours that it is open is a auditory building. there are students taking classes nearby, so there is a matter of students to not be going from the bart station all of the way over. it would just be impractical. if you ever look at the city college classes, you literally had areas where students could not get to their classes in time because they were so far away. thank you. supervisor mar: surplus >> i am with the san francisco building and trades council. i was going to get a sigh of relief to finally testify o

medications for ventilation, for roadway- compromised projects, was a direct result out of work done under ceqa. we reviewed the environmental impact report for the easter neighborhood plan. we identified this as a potential roadway impact. we provided the mitigation strategies. that has been included in the new mitigation strategy, even though a costly one, in the environmental impact report. so, we're getting to the end. our work in environmental impact assessment does not only deal with negatives or things that are adverse or harmful. we are also concerned about creating a help the city. we are concerned that every neighborhood have the resources and conditions, the parks, schools, grocery stores, the safe and adequate housing that makes life healthy, that every neighborhood have access to jobs and transportation that makes life healthy. the hulk -- the health department is not the only agency in the city. all agencies can contribute to the health of the population. i think one of our long-term goal is to work with each agency to identify how they can do that. 12 will be developed with commu

ceqa is probably not good to

ceqa is probably not good to give us the answers. this is a question of policy that touches on how we create great streets. we have to varieties of public space in the city. we have parks and we have streets. we love our parks and treat them with great dignity and it anybody said the mound to put 700 utility boxes in them, people would be outraged. but streets are a variety of public space we do not treat with dignity. there are a lot of different entities put the stuff into the right of way. a lot of people, including the former planning director, commented on the mean streets. our streets are harsh, ugly and dangerous. it is important we dignify them and make them safer. it will mean changing the way we do business. there should be another hearing on what triggers this. i think the main issue is the first no harm. do not do something that is point to make it harder to do the right thing later. a great example is valencia's street. when london to the sidewalks, and there were these polls that were too expensive to move and they are

it would not trigger any additional ceqa review, no additional review through eir, and it would allow a number of additional features to be incorporated and constructed into the design. unfortunately, the appellant was not willing to accept the compromise. i reiterate that the department and the historic preservation commission have all try to work with the appellant to develop a style that met the standards and allow for the conversion to a residential unit. does indicate what the compromise recently developed, we still believe there is approval for the project at this location, but without compromise on the design and the fact the appellant would like to move forward with the original project, i would like to reiterate that as of september 1 hearing, the historic preservation commission disapprove this project based on the department recommendations. while the property is at the rear of the property, the historic preservation commission does not believe the proposed design is appropriate for an individual landmark because it violates the secretary of interiors standards. they wait a

these are the ceqa fees. the legislation as correcting

i am here to support the approval and draft motion adopting the ceqa findings and approval of conditions of the project. the plan provides a carefully considered model for creating a vibrant residential neighborhood. it is a well conceived urban projects the company by plans and streetscape and park design that will create an active part rome and enhance streets that are consistent with the better streets plan. it is a challenge to walk or bike along 16th street which hundreds do every day. the notion of a gracious, welcoming edge to that site is one that will make the city more livable for everybody. the plan provides a nice array of housing types to support to the first population of current and future residents, including young professionals, families, seniors, and students. it could be a bit more family and student-friendly. perhaps by adding 3-bedroom units and we would like to see that be a cool student housing project. i am working on a mirror on that. their art to other colleges -- three other colleges in the neighborhood. it is important to keep making progress on housing. the d