i am going to quote from some of the department material, because this is a ceqa issue. "pursuant to an initial study, and evaluates and discloses the effects of the proposed project, does not assess the merits of the project." section c summarizes the location surrounding zoning, and it does not assess the environmental effects of any future rezoning of the neighborhood, nor does it consider the projects code compliant or its assessment of environmental impact. it may be considered when consideration of whether to approve the project. all of the testimony i heard has to do with approval of the proposed project. that is not in front of us. what is in front of us is whether to go along with the emnd, or to require a full environmental report. i have read through the materials. i do not see where this item, a full report, is necessary, and required, or should be done during your -- should be done, and i think the argument should be considered in the zoning and by us if the project ever comes to us. the recommendation is the commission adopt the motion to uphold. no substan

the ceqa appeal was filed yesterday. it could've been filed any time after the ceqa was issued more than one month ago. the city attorney has yet to make a decision about the timeliness. that is all i will say. thank you. >> is there any public comment on the continuance question? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is yours. president garcia: before we deliberate, would you, madam executive director, or the city attorney, explain what the effect would be if we would hear this? and the board of supervisors were to hear it also? if the city attorney determines it was timely, what would happen to our process? >> if the city attorney determines it is timely and the board of supervisors here is the appeal and decides the underlying and our mental evaluation is faulty, then any decision that this board makes would be moot. president garcia: not mooted by the board of supervisors taking jurisdiction, only if there were to decide that the cat x is invalid. >> correct. president garcia: thank you. any comments? >> i would be

cna is actively engaged in ceqa review for this project. we submitted comments on the draft eir, with four experts attaching reports. we outlined a series of legal and technical defects in the draft eir's analysis. we submitted to the comments yesterday on the final eir. the document still fails to remedy many of our concerns that we raised in the draft. the final eir continues to omit and understate project impacts to traffic and air quality. it fails to adopt mitigation for these impacts and other impacts such as greenhouse gases. and if mitigation is identified, it is often vague and unenforceable. just taking traffic as one example, the eir uses an incorrect base line for muni ridership, using 2006 data rather than more recent data which shows increased ridership. this creates a misleading and mistaken impression that there is more capacity than there is. therefore, understating the project's transit impacts. our traffic expert also found that there were some really unsubstantiated and improper tweaking to the traffic modeling, such tha

secondly, and i am not a ceqa expert here, but the response to the ceqa section guidelines at 15262 says that a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions, which the agency board or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded, does not require the preparation of an 10th eir or negative declaration. but we did fund this study. outcome is not subject to an environmental report? i think those points were made earlier. it is also contained in the letter we received. i think -- i appreciate leaving the cnr documents in appendix c, the video simulation of the proposed project along the embarcadero. for me, it was rather revealing in many ways. it somehow more clearly showed to me the relationship of the entire project along the embarcadero and how this particular project comes right up to the property line. if you are viewing the video, most of the projects along there were sent back from the embarcadero itself. along the embarcadero, there should have been more breathing room. secondly, one of the views that the video showed where they stop and show

the motion is for item 2a, the adoption of ceqa findings. on the motion to adopt ceqa findings. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes. commissioner antonini: now we move to 2b, st. louis general plan amendment. -- st. luke's general plan amendment. >> did someone have their microphone -- on the motion to approve -- recommend approval to the board of supervisors the general plan amendment to the st. luke's campus. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. on the 2c, the request for general plan amendments for the general hospital. to recommend approval to the board of supervisors for the general plan amendments commissioner antonini: antoniniaye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes 4-2. item 2d. commi

, the ceqa guidelines, and chaer 31 of the administrative code.s concludes my presentation on this matter, and if any commissioners have any questions, i will turn the stage over to the next item. thank you. commissioner: thank you. >> thank you, good morning, president fong, members of the commission. items 2a through 2n gather constitute the required approvals for the long-range develop a plan projects. theyl

ceqa also requires an eir sets forth a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. the eir pilots this requirement by setting up a small set of alternatives that are not feasible. for example, eir says we can move the women's and children's center to the st. luke's campus. but there is already dead -- already that type of facility planned for mission bay, so it was not needed. when cna came back with our alternative and said let's look at other types of special services concentrated in st. luke's, the response was, sorry, we already analyzed our reasonable range. it was limited. at and this should have had a good faith look. it did not. the anr raises all sorts of objections about why alternatives to the -- the eir raises all sorts of objections. one thing it says is we cannot increase construction at st. luke's because there is a continuum of care issue. so we cannot meet our richer for it time requirements for needed construction at the california and pacific campuses. what the eir does not say is there have been literally hundreds of extensions granted to retrofi

, the ceqa guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation on this matter, and if any commissioners have any questions, i will turn the stage over to the next item. thank you. commissioner: thank you. >> thank you, good morning, president fong, members of the commission. items 2a through 2n gather constitute the required approvals for the long-range develop a plan projects. they will provide updates on the development agreement, this is an overview of the actions being requested it. for the contiguous public spaces. and most of these items are technical cleanup type of corrections, and staff is proposing one revision to the conditions of approval in response to commissioner borden's comments about creating advisory groups for the near term projects. these were previously proposed at campuses with a long-range project. there are several extra hard copies available for the public, and we will turn this over. >> good morning, commissioners. i am ken, oewe. what we plan to do is amplify on the topics. the hearing el

parking in general is a ceqa issue. it was completely analyzed, but the fact that the ferry building ownership no longer would have the right to the parking as revenue from the parking at 351 see what 351 is not a ceqa issue. that is not -- and also, there is no intensification of use by the project's, changes that have occurred between comments and responses and the present, so therefore, unless there is an intensification of use that would have to be realized. in fact, the use is less because the project has become smaller. there have been fewer parking spaces, fewer residential units. in that case, that is not something that has to be looked at again. i think the analysis of america's cup impact are adequate. it is a moving target, and unfortunately, the impacts are becoming less from unfortunate developments that have occurred in the last month or so. hopefully, we can avoid that kind of thing happening again in the future. that is, as i say, a moving target. those are my main thoughts about the adequacy of the eir,

well we are completing this additional ceqa work, they need to continue their conditional use. reprove -- we approved the continuance. the 47 guy -- before kevin guy goes through the specifics, a c u -- a cu is to determine whether this is compatible with the community. this is a venue of regional and civic importance. it has hosted a wide variety of events for over 40 years, since the 1950's, without substantial operating conditions. if you choose to the, you could approve the cu which allows the center to continue without any conditions. the department attempted to minimize impact on the community by imposing 30 conditions. you can review the operations of this center with conditions, whether it is necessary to the city. >> i am kevin guy, with planning staff. i will summarize the three conditions raised by the appellant. the appellant contends the conditions of approval exceed the authority of planning code section 185e, which allows an operating business to continue, providing there is no enlargement of the use. the superior court of california upheld the zoning administrat

we have secured ceqa clearance for all of these. for this week a parking garage improvements, we are working with dpw to take a preliminary assessment that we got from a third party consultant to work in a more specific work program and to help manage the delivery of that work. here is a high level overview of the schedule. these are in different stages of the planning design and construction. we are structuring all of this so that the bond funds will be extended within three years of their issuance. retiring to a number of budget analyst recommendations come i want to thank mr. rose and his newman for a lot of work and a very comprehensive report. there was a lot of reiteration between agency and a financial advisor team and the budget analysts office. i want to thank them for the good work and recommendations, all of which we think are good ones and recommend for your incorporation into the final legislation. so finally, you have already laid out what the pieces of legislation are. one is a general authorization for us to issue th

on a whole, they have new ceqa findings. it has been submitted to the clerk's file for this item. this also includes changes to certain uses at the event venues and other variance is under ceqa but did not create any new significant impacts or mitigation measures. one of these relates to the increase potential seating at any event stage act -- at piers 27 and 29, and we think it creates a potential opportunity, and so we have added a whereas clause to the resolution for the city and the event authority to work together to establish a preconditions for that stage, including number of events, timing of events, and making them available to other organizations as we really try to integrate that part of the neighborhood planning for the events along the waterfront. the next is in the work force development plan. that has now been revised to reflect the incorporation of the city local hire policies for all construction, even for construction pollock -- projects that the event authority may pursue an be reimbursed for by the port. i think that is a step forward and really reflects the ha

and it does not -- neither projects tricare ceqa or environmental review. -- trigger ceqa or environmental review. improvements are consistent with a redevelopment plan and the public utility's commission which will maintain and operate these facilities. they're ready for their intended use. we request that you accept both projects and move them forward to the full board for acceptance. supervisor mar: if there are no questions, let's move this up to public comment. is there anyone? public comment is closed, saying -- seeing none. can we do this without objection? thank you. please call our last item. >> resolution redirecting a congestion management agency block grant from the second street streetscape is that right? >> [inaudible] superisor mar: thank you. let me quickly look at the item. i do not think we need a presentation. thank you for sitting through the fee deferral discussion. >> i am so sorry to be late. the item before you is an extension of an item we brought before. i am discounting my breath. -- i am just catching my breath. at that time, we came to the board of commissioner

my concern is based on extensive experience, that the california ceqa mandate is critically lacking regard and analysis of the cumulative impacts that are required to be studied and mitigated. and i give you a legal citation that you can use and should have used. cumulative impacts, particularly like the tenderloin area, includes the twitter area, an area of impoverished people that would be affected by speculative land speculation that will raise the price of housing. with san francisco and new york being the highest cost of living cities in the nation, it is abusive to assume that there is a market rate solution. i have attached at least one proposal of how the city, through its efforts, with public-private partnerships can readdress that situation. it is nets, in st. -- nuts, insane, that this is not been addressed. it is the lack of a public- private partnership of the city's share -- public-private partnership. the city's share, particularly given the seismic event inevitably, over 1 million people will be here for three months without service. despite the so-called blue ribbon commit

i always find it somewhat complicated that every time someone does not like a project, of the ceqa is bad. sometimes people work on the same documents. when people don't like the project, it is bad, and when they do, it seems to be adequate. there is always a matter of where you stand on the project. >> i think some of my colleagues covered the point on how the adequacies have been produced identified or dressed. kind of moving to the different issues, one thing i have a distaste for is class warfare. i think that this happens too often in the city, everything is that have and have-nots and it is true that there is a huge wealth gap in the city and in this country and no single project is ever going to address that and i don't think anyone has any sort of big ideas that that could ever happen but if you really wanted to do class warfare in this situation, it is kind of interesting because you have neighbors who live in the neighborhood verses labor. also the teachers union. it is interesting because i saw an article on february 26th talking about -- they said the average california ho

from 2008 to 2012, ceqa is planning a much stronger role in helping us and allowing us which projects we end of identifying the that is actually the first step towards having your project named specifically in the bond. you need to get your ceqa completed the unfortunately, geneva car barn is in the middle of its process. until that is completed, we would not give a call up this much money for geneva car barn. in addition, the whole project is $15 million, roughly. we have talked about varying amounts of what the city's contribution could be to that project. but we were trying to balance the needs of things that a more shovel-ready versus projects that still have a way to go in terms of becoming ripe enough to receive and use the investment. we're working closely with the geneva car our folks. the department is helping to pay for some of that environmental review and the application costs. the city has given, $600,000 in the past, to do planning. our commitment to this project is strong. it is just that is not quite ready yet to meet the legal requirements necessary to be named in the

but because of ceqa, even if we do not get the ordinance approved by the board and cannot execute this strategy by b.a.t., -- bae, we would be required to install the shoreside power at pier 70. supervisor avalos: in other words, they are providing for their own initiatives. >> yes, the reason for the shoreside power at pier 27, that is where we board vessels when they come in. they need to continue operating their engines to generate electricity for lights and other equipment on the vessel. that is a continuous requirement. those are diesel engines and the emissions associated with that activity is avoided when the ships can plug into the city's electrical grid and receive hetch hetchy power. the same phenomenon goes on at year's 70 at the -- at pier 70 at the shipyard. the vessels there also generate power either through their own engines, or the shipyard will often bringing mobile generators, mobile diesel generators to supply power to the vessels while they are at drydock. supervisor avalos: can i ask another question? that is, when we are using shoreside power, and eventually usin

and it does not -- neither projects tricare ceqa or environmental review. -- trigger ceqa or environmentalreview. improvements are consistent with a redevelopment plan and the public utility's commission which will maintain and operate these facilities. they're ready for their intended use. we request that you accept both projects and move them forward to the full board for acceptance. supervisor mar: if there are no questions, let's move this up to public comment. is there anyone? public comment is closed, saying -- seeing none. can we do this without objection? thank you. please call our last item. >> resolution redirecting a congestion management agency block grant from the second street streetscape

it found that the heights that were approved for golden gateway were a violation of ceqa, and they made a unanimous recommendation that they could not be built without violating ceqa -- unanimous recommendation by the planning commission. that triggered a three-year process. in the end, they changed the height limits in golden gate way to 84 feet. the findings were the view impact on the slopes of the hill. there was not one mention of coit tower. significant adverse impact was found by this planning commission based on those findings and those corridors, which are not even discussed, let alone made findings. the city has made a finding, and there has been no intervening change, but that -- that there are significant adverse impacts on views towards the ferry building across this site. after golden gateway was built, golden gate we started on 83- series -- a series of three attempts to build on this site. this is the maps from the redevelopment agency. we did not color this in. this is their colors. this says recreation facilities. all the green is recreation and open space. this is the

and that you replace the ceqa language on pay five -- page 52 instead state and all the proposed projects have now received categorical exemptions, in accordance with ceqa requirements, that you amend the proposed requirement 11.3 0.31 to require the comptroller's office work with the sfmta to report back to the board of supervisors within six months. after the series 2012 issuance of costs and benefits of using outside financial advisers using in hass city debt management staff and sfmta's initial bonn references, you amend the 11.3 0.41 resolution to reduce to request of $160 million to issue revenue bonds by $80 million. that would be $80 million left, which would allow the mta to launch the initial a and b revenue bonds, sufficient time for deep debbie to to complete its parking garage assessment to determine the amount and party for improvements and for the controller's office to report the to the board of supervisors on the costs and benefits of the initial sfmta bond issuance and that you amend the proposed ordinance of 0.24032 place $1.6 million designated for the muni system read

you're sorry trying to point out, there is more than just ceqa and nepa involved. i'm going to give some examples because i question whether there was proper, full, responsiveness on planning meetings about this. there have been two recent instances where i had made complaints about notices i am planning. so far, i am two and 0. do you know for certain -- are you sure, are you sure you are sure that there was requirements in compliance that when there was a meeting notice, the people were told alternative format information would be available? that even for the blind, there could be a tactile map of some of this -- do you know that? with the language ordinance the city has about material being available in spanish and chinese, was that part of the notice? i bring that up because with the heron's head block of green walks, that was not the case. i got the mayor's office of disability involved. they are training staff. things have changed. i just got the notice yesterday. similarly, when there was a concern some weeks ago about public open space in a private building

from 2008 to 2012, ceqa is planning a much stronger role in helping us and allowing us which projects we end of identifying the that is actually the first step towards having your project named specifically in the bond. you need to get your ceqa completed the unfortunately, geneva car barn is in the middle of its process. until that is completed, we wo

we're not sure how this is going to play out that this is one of the -- for ceqa reform. the next bill is on page 19 of your matrix and we are recommending a drop from your matrix on this bill. no longer deals with transportation matters affecting san francisco. the last bill we have is sb1545 which is on page 19 of your matrix. we are recommending a watch position on this bill. prohibits mtc from the pursuit of new building sites in san francisco until after an audit is submitted by the state auditor general. after the completion of the audit, as the mark -- a report would be submitted. we are recommending to watch this bill as it may impact your position later on, depending how it moves forward. supervisor wiener: this is about the headquarters move? >> right. >supervisor wiener: why would we not take a position on this? >> we want to get a better idea of what they want to do with it. timing wise, we think they may be moving ford in purchasing the building prior to the legislation. supervisor wiener: the building has been purchased and it's about spending money and it w

it is very important that we understand that we need to comply with ceqa. but taking a look at if we are being overly conservative pushing projects, making things more expensive, taking money away from the actual renovation of projects, i am very interested in that data. you may not know of the top of your head. >> i do not have that, but i do want to emphasize the planning and the environmental review costs are a capital cost as opposed to an operating budget costs. we are trying to be very responsible. responsible. they have seen fit to give us

it is very important that we understand that we need to comply with ceqa. but taking a look at if we are being overly conservative pushing projects, making things more expensive, taking money away from the actual renovation of projects, i am very interested in that data. you may not know of the top of your head. >> i do not have that, but i do want to emphasize the planning and the environmental review costs are a capital cost as opposed to an operating budget costs. we are trying to be very responsible. they have seen fit to give us the chance to renovate and rejuvenate. there are significant challenges with respect to time unrelated to navigating the regulatory landscape. i will be happy to give you that information. supervisor kim: perhaps we can hold off on questions until the end of the presentation just in the interest of time. >> why don't i jumped right ahead to the two-year budget process. the mayor's office and asked for a 5% base budget reduction. we were asked to absorb revenue changes. the we are constantly analyzing the expectations regarding

the ceqa guidelines document what is a new substantial impact, including the increase in impacts that cannot be mitigated, declining to adopt feasible mitigation measures, differing from one previously analyzed, new information included in the document does

is there any kind of ceqa something that says there can be any kind of the way the cumulative impacts are, is there any kind of retroactive mitigation that can come about? or if the highrises going to make the traffic even worse that it is, is that right? >> someone from environmental planning will answer that. it comes as a community planning exemption. >commissioner sugaya: they will have to take into consideration, and i assume. >> being trapped here -- i guess the important thing in terms of this is a reminder that we all look at a list of projects, we look at a growth that was assumed cumulative for this project, it is part of that growth. it is not a particular building or a particular site, so did we account for this in the cumulative sense? because the project we're talking about is something that is anticipated. and the overall matrix of the cumulative impact. >> on to the item of work force, any comments or questions? commissioner antonini: and we combine that with housing since it is sort of related to? questions and comments, we were asked about the special use district, a

it suggests we need to look at ceqa. we need to analyze the environmental impact of this proposed use, the categorical exemption is not appropriate, and that pursuant to this package for approval, the historical report indicates this is a historical building. historical buildings are considered a historical research and aren't accepted, not allowed. i submit a project sponsor has not submitted necessary information to appropriately analyze the entire project. assuming they did, we still do not understand pursuant to an analysis that the noise affects, the water affects, and the air affects, and the quality has not been analyzed. i suggest we ask the project sponsor and confirm what kind of noise is going to be generated, based on the roof, which i believe is a significant affect on the exterior of the property. there is extensive exterior remodel on the roof, and i suggest the staff had an opportunity to fully analyze. thank you, commissioners. >> good evening. i am a parent of a child in the middle school, and i am here

there will need to meet the ceqa compliance. there will need to invest some time in order to demonstrate to as the appropriateness of the use. it will not be free to the counterparties. we're not charging for the use to generate revenue. there are and unease whoever approaches in the past who have a business interest in using our non-municipal departments to have a business interest in using our light poles. we see this as revenue generating opportunities. this is specific to those opportunities that are not revenue generating. >> city departments. >> correct. >> city departments, neighborhood association. thank you. any questions? public comment? seeing none, can i have a motion? >> moved. >> second. >> and seconded. all those in favor? the motion carries. item 14. >> presentation discussion of the proposed contract rate scheduled to recover the project projected water rate water requirements. under the terms of the to basnight water supply agreement between the city and county of san francisco and wholesale water customers. >>