they are not what the ceqa did. what you would be doing now is uphold hchlp c's action is making ceqa approval finding which is that we read the eir and we under this project will have an up voidable impact to open space because of shadow. that's what the eir identified, but because of the other social reasons, we are choosing this project despite the significant and unvoidable impact. that's how they relate to each other >> thank you so much. i want to go back to mr. fry. history category issues are not my area of expertise. i would claim to know extensively about that. you mentioned that staff found it's tower is in conformance and i would like you to talk about that. >> from a lay person if you see a large glass tower, that would be different. can you tell us how you judge that conformity and how you relate old and new billions -- buildings and the process behind that. >> the commission looked at a variety of contextual factors when evaluating the compatibility of a new building especially as it with the unique s

when a ceqa appeal is pending but not other land use appeals. >> okay. so this appeal is not a due process appeal? can you explain a little bit? >> sure. the reason for the advice on ceqa appeals is -- has nothing to do with due process issue. it's whether the board can take approval actions during the appeal process. >> and for the appeal and due process appeal so we have to do it without recommendation. >> on cu appeals and other appeal there is is not a prohibition on the board -- on the committee moving with or without recommendation. >> okay thank you for that correction. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i wanted to clarify so i have an understanding where we're at and president chiu you said 25 feet difference but i thought i heard they're at 480. >> right now it's at 480 but according to mr. jeffreys there was a willingness in the conversations in the last days to consider 450. i would put it out that was the conversation. >> perhaps the project sponsor can clarify. >> thank you supervisors and i apologize that mr. jeffreys isn't able to be here but

so we're coming to the end of a very long ceqa journey that was initiated by supervisor wiener. this is the last piece of what i believe is a compromise resolution in terms of reforming how we put in place deadlines for exemptions and negdecks by the local ceqa process, so this is the final piece that our office had introduced in may that allows members of the public to both present information and speak publicly about a redetermination of a ceqa exemption so this is a case where a project is referred to and the planning department and props by dbi or another agency state thrg is a modification to the project and asking whether that fits within the current exemption or whether a new one must be issued. members of the public were concerned at the time because there wasn't a clear definition of what a modification to a project was. since then we add language to say what it is which is great and members of the public would like a public arena and present information and for a determination if it fits under the same exemption so this is the language that we had in the original legis

with respect to ceqa, substantial evidence support ceqa findings with respect to approval of the projects. first the hpc adopted with respect to historic resources. the project would not cause substantial adverse impact to the erinson building, that the project would not cause substantial impact on the building and to any significant cumulative historic issues. second, the hpc properly adopted findings regarding to the project. i want to clarify what we mean by cumulative shadow impact. the eri established that it would know impact this. however in particular the transbay project, the eir concluded because they are in a similar area and shadow similar open spaces, not just union square but other public open spaces in the event of the area would have a cumulative impact in which the project would make a consideration contribution. the project would make that cumulative considerable contribution. in rejecting the two reduced height alternatives analyze in the eir, the hpc found that even these alternatives would have a contribution to shadow an open space generally. also not only on financi

the ceqa process -- some of the work we're doing requires a full eir and can take two years and the ceqa process can be in the way as well so we're trying to be effective and smart in planning for the ceqa process and the community engagement is effective but there is factors outside of what we can manage as an industry that impact the timelines but it's something we're focused on and want to make sure whatever resources we have whether from the federal government, the state government or regionally or locally we put them into the ground and benefit the transportation system directly. >> i appreciate your focus on this. we had so many transit related projects from market street to the subway and various other projects where initial deadlines and budgets slip and i appreciate your focus on this. to the extent of all of the projects we can continue to publicly put our goals out, put our schedules out, and budgets out and when we slip know there is real accountability in the departments. anything that you can do to provide more transparency and accountability would deal with the frustration

durt the ceqa project. you have to look the end -- entire project. while the rest of the work going around the hazardous materials, that is not possible, but under and ordinance system that would be something that could be a possibility. so i just wanted to raise those two points to sort of talk about the difference between how it is now and this ordinance relative to the concerns that i hear being voiced. >> what about my specific questions about an emergency of a sewer main? >> that would be a situation where there would be standard conditions as i understand as access that public agencies would need to take as public right of way. it shouldn't delay the process. >> this would not be a public agency action. i'm asking specifically about the home owner or property owner who says has an aging, a sewer main is a common repair that needs to be dug up through the basement? >> sure. i you need ed to do that repair myself. that should not trigger -- paul reminded me that there is an emergency exemption provision

the community ceqa improvement team had to swallow hard on the first approval thing but when first kim's office proposed the ability to appeal modification we realized that was our way that we could -- if we got something substantial on that and that's what this is today we could support the full package and after a decade of battling this out it's a positive sign that all parties have come to the table and get something on the table that we will all grumble about but we can live with and kudos to all three of you and you made this happen and good that it's over and we can get some rest. >> thank you. ms. hilton. >> good afternoon supervisors. i just want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing up this challenge to the entire public comment and for having the patience to stick with this and listen to both sides and thank supervisor kim for bringing forward this modification legislation piece and because of the kinds of the last approval and supervisor chiu the consensus maker in the whole process so i am glad to see you are all willing to adopt this legislation as a good faith effort and

this would mitigate the measure for projects that are under ceqa. if this process is required by code, it no longer be imposed by conditions of approval by way of mitigation measure. so as i already indicated by kelly prets 0 because we are amended the building and health codes we had meetings at the health inspection, planning commission, each of those commissions has recommended the board approve this ordinance and that completes my presentation unless you have questions. we have staff here from the department and mayor's office and planning. thank you. >> thank you very much. supervisor kim? >> thank you. i think this policy makes a lot of sense. since it's been in effect since 1986. i see this is an important policy and what some of the outcomes have been? >> there are dozens or hundreds of projects over the course of the years that have gone through this process that the outcome is rather than either the public through dust contaminated dust in the air or workers getting exposed to contaminated soils, the health department for going through the

this is a last piece under very delicately balanced set of legislation reform to the ceqa process and keeping the entire party in coalition together. so i do want to again thank our city attorney, chiu, supervisor wiener and planning for continued work on asl cts of this legislation together and look forward to passing those both pieces today. thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. president, colleagues i want to thank you again last week for the unanimous assets of the legislation that i forward and i hope will result in a significant improvement to the ceqa process in a clear deadline specifically triggered by the first approval of the project. i think it's a significant step forward. regarding the trailing with the legislation sponsored by supervisor kim, i will be supporting the legislation today. although i don't believe it to be a necessary in terms of having good process, i understand there is a dire for it and for how it is drafted and what i introduced to the committee yes, i'm uncomfortable supporting it. in terms of contact, the issue of modification, is the iss

it's a hard issue, but beyond ceqa and process issues i know there has been some discussion about the mta's own process or multi-designs of process that some agencies don't have and maybe could use another look, and i am also glad to hear about the renewed top level management focus on moving capital projects through the mta, so i really want to encourage that. it's been my experience on some projects at least things don't move as quickly within the mta as they need to but just so you don't think we're picking on the mta president chiu and i had an interesting discussion at a transportation authority -- excuse me, finance committee meeting the other day about funding for the geary bus rapid transit project which is not to the mta yet and it's been 10 years i think, and i know we expressed a lot of frustration and we put a funding item out with a negative recommendation and we're sending a strong message to the ta and not acceptable to have the projects move along at a snail's pace so i think it's a group effort to look at the agency's processes and all of the public processes and how

the ceqa process -- some of the work we're doing requires a full eir and can take two years and the ceqa process can be in the way as well so we're trying to be effective and smart in planning for the ceqa procan

both ceqa ordinances were to be before the full board this week and they were continued to 1 week. the ordinance that was related to the castro street neighborhood serving non-profit was before the full board this week. that was heard by this commission on june 20th. it would allow conditional use operation to operate and that was an approved. there's an appeal of the historic preservation commission and those go to the full board. this appeal was continued to july 23rd of this year. and cpmc was passed on its final reading. the revised development agreement and associated amendments were an approved and the mayor maybe signing these right now. by way of introductions, there are two sets of interim controls. first the upper market interim controls that i summarized and second the interim controls by supervisor kim by commissioner antonini that would impose i am interim controls that requires conditional use operation for conditional use. and those will be in effect for 18 months as well. thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you for your report. just a question on the inter

i previously wrote you a letter about ceqa and here i have this, i don't know if i should put it down or not. it's not compliant. can i continue? >> briefly. that's your 2 minutes there. >> you did a great job. if you want to leave all that information for us to pass around. >> here is all the toxins that this generated permit. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. we have some other speakers. maybe we'll have questions for you. >> i don't really need much longer after today. mr. sanchez. >> we can't have dialogue. thank you very much. >> chris charles? i'm paul larson with black lotus. i guess my unique spin on this is i operated an internet exchange on mission street from 94-2008. it called telehub base. in 14 years we never had a single complaint. the applicant was a tenant of mine. i think there are ways to mitigate the sound generate or use. we never used ours except for the test. it's a management issue. i think the mitigations that i have heard in the recommendation for staff will work and appreciate your support. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president fong

it did not change the final approval trigger for ceqa appeal as a trigger point. now, this one does. and this was a very important, very important issue for the coalition, for the community coalition. we drew a line in the sand and said, this is what we want. we cannot accept anything less. and it was adamant. we all said, yes, that is the first thing we want and we cannot give that up. well, guess what? as always, you know, times change, situations change, and we are forced -- we are told that that is not possible. and, so, in order to accept that, [speaker not understood] and we said, well, then as a compromise, we have to have the opportunity to have a hearing, a public hearing with the ero. and i don't believe that's asking too much. we gave up a very, very important first step. you know, we swallowed hard and we accepted the first [speaker not understood] trigger. i think to ask for this is not asking too much. the planning department, they get things right sometimes, maybe most of the time. but on the other hand, there are many occasions in which the trips t

and i think the environmental analysis did show what ceqa expert, but certainly on-site residential generates a number of trips. there's no doubt, supervisor, that there will be impacts to our transit system and we certainly, from the public side and taking our direction and queues from the board and what we know from the pressures from our other departmental colleagues at muni, certainly push it to taking our guidance from the board. does it make sense. is everyone paying their fair share. >> so, i guess i would like to give direction and a queue, but i believe that when we're negotiating these projects where clearly there are impact fees that are paid that are well above what is legally required, that these projects should be paid transit impact fees. and, again, not just this project. we see a lot of projects coming through here that are not paying transit impact fees and we're heading in a bad direction, and i think we need to shift course on that. so, i do want to provide that feedback. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to clarify. so, there is actually dollars that are coming in

i think between today and also we had a pretty extensive ceqa hearing, i think we all very, very aware of the strong views on both sides. and, so, everyone is welcome to come out again. i know we all had today's public comment very much in mind. city attorney first of all to confirm, there will be no issues with putting this out as a committee report next monday or the following day? >> that's right. you can put it out as a committee report. >> even if there's tweaks or changes? >> sorry, it depends on what the tweaks or changes are. if the only issue that the two sides are discussing is height and the height comes down [speaker not understood] without other changes out of [speaker not understood], that could come out of committee. i can't comment on what other changes may -- >> okay. >> and that will actually be the same issue, whether we put it out today or as a committee report. if we put it out today and next tuesday and make amendments before the board, if it were to require the committee, it would require continuance at the full board. ~ >> that's exactly right. >> and a reductio

the appeal of the major permit to alter, you know, many of you were here during the appeal of the ceqa or the document and i have a lot of concerns around the adequate studies around traffic and shadow and open space or others, my concern is other spaces than others, my concern with working with the variety of agencies that we are really thinking about south of market where people truly live. a lot of the poets -- points in question that i ask in time is asking our city to be pro active how we build for this growth. that being said, we move forward with the eir as being adequate and i expect more for them to approve larger projects or our water front. within this appeal, one of it's, i'm really considering hpc consideration around the erinson building and the major features of the conservation district. i believe hpc has done it's due diligence and will be making a motion to move forward item 48 and table item 49 and 50. >> we have a motion by supervisor kim, can we get a second? second by supervisor avalos. >> thank you, i want to thank all the members of the public that have been wor

and former adopted ceqa findings for the board adoption as well. i would like to bring up to the podium now jim summers to give you some details about their coordination with the regional partners on this project. jim? >> thank you, members of the committee, my name is jim summers, vice-president. in 2006 we responded to a proposal to expand this operation to provide more water storage for the sf puc. throughout process of three 3 years we have been selected as the preferred tenant and for the last 5 years we've been working diligently with the local environmental community as well as the local community to address any concerns they may have. i'm very happy and pleased to be here today to say that we have entered into agreements to not only save our groups, but as well as the alameda line and approve this project and we have received the approval from the sf puc and i'm pleased to have this moved forward to move the benefits that we agreed to the local community and environmental community. a speaker card was called for item 2, but it was item 5. i

the sf puc commission approval and the ceqa findings which note this project is categorically exempt. i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. colleagues any comments or questions? okay. we will open it up for public comment. is there any public comment? and without objection that is the ord. madam clerk please call item two. >> item two is for muni and how it will be paid for and jowbl growth. >> thank you want i requested this hearing to have a frank discussion how we should be planning for the expansion and bolstering of the public transportation system to meet the future needs of san francisco. we are estimated to grow as a city and we need to make sure that muni and the rest of our transportation system is going to be up to the task of servicing our growing population. a few months ago we held a hearing at this committee where we talked in very precise numbers about the challenges that muni has, challenges that any of us that read the system see everyday and i believed it was important for all of us to understand in terms of the hard numbers and we lear

thought the community benefits was what the project itself could bring and mitigation with regard to ceqa impacts and so on and sometimes that might involve money. i recommended myself with regard to the impact on the van ness plan from cpmc that since it was eliminating housing that would otherwise be built then to give money to cdc to affordable housing. there was a connection to that. from where we will be hearing from an architecturaly significant church, the alternative of having many housing there and the density and the facility and open space and the developer will give $60,000 to other groups unrelated until we can figure it out. that was up again in the land use committee and the masonic, there were about 12 people and they all burst into laughter when they heard this. $60,000. like this is the cheap date. at the masonic without the knowledge of any of the neighbors or nob hill association people. which none of the people in knob hill association know about and ceremony was not agreed to buy the officers who used to be down here and a personal on every ticket which the cs event