is not in doubt with ceqa. the zoning administrators powers are many but the charter nor the planning coda allow to take any action on the ceqa document. planning staff issuing a categorical xemg on december 31st. four, the building is not originally historic. national register of historic places of eligibility criteria are used by the department in evaluating historic significance. there are two components of national registered standards, one has to do with architecture and one with history. in terms of architecture this is a common unan adorned and missionary revival. it has not distinctive fix us -- if fixtures. it was written by the historian. he included properties as quote uniformly bland and lacking distinct. the entire neighborhood was studied and determine no aspect to historic district. this issue was also put in historic evaluation. this historic district does not exist anywhere in this building. six, even if this building were historic there is nothing about the windows that define the characterist

it looked at all 18 ceqa topics. it did identify mitigation measures and included for archaeology and paleontology resources for hazardous materials and they are very consistent with how dpw and c and p construct projects and making contractors aware of what to do if they come across archeological artifacts, for example. because the initial study was so extensive and addressed some topics we were able to do a focused environmental eir. what that meant was the document focused primarily on noise, air quality and transportation. no significant impacts were identified for noise and air quality. there were significant impacts identified for transportation and mitigation measures were identified and that's part of what you will be asked to act on today. the transportation study also identified several significant and unvoidable impacts. on the transit capacity side at 2035 we identified crowding at some corridors. that is primarily the result of the travel time proposals of making service more appealing to customers and a

i'm going to recommend that we adopt for approval with the board of supervisors and also adopt the ceqa findings. >> second. >> commissioner singer? >> actually i was considering making a motion. the motion was made. so therefore i -- >> commissioners, each commissioner will take it separately. so you will need to make a motion for the health commission. >> health commission approved. >> commissioner singer? >> you want to second? >> i had a clarifying question, but first congratulations to everyone on this project. it's kind of nice to be a new commissioner and people congratulate you for work you didn't do. in ordinance 300-10, it sas that any change of use to a medical use. that's a capitalized definition in the planning code. in your executive summary it says any change of use from non-medical use. i just want to understand, because depending on how you reads those they are slightly different. >> there are two, i know claudia can speak to this if i get it wrong. there are two thresholds, one is to change from a non-medical use to a medical use that is 10,000 square foot or more. the

coalition and these conversations were productive and appreciate that on issues not having to do with ceqa or planning code issues that there has been a pathway to move forward. but that being said i'd like to ask planning staff if you could describe the amendment and hopefully we can go from there. >> sure, thank you, good afternoon, supervisors. it was [speaker not understood] with the planning department. on february 6 the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance. the proposed ordinance would amend planning code section 18 8 to allow secondary structure that is noncomplying with respect to its four area ratio limit to be removed in whole or in part and reconstructed if it is located in the downtown retail district and the planning commission can make certain findings through the downtown project authorization process. currently planning code section 188 prohibits a partial demolition and reconstruction of a noncomplying structure even if the proposed reconstruction would result in a net decrease in the property's quark footage. after the department co

item no. 8 you are adopting the motion to rel -- release the funds after approved by ceqa. >> item no. 7 we can move to the full board. >> so moved. >> item no. 8 release pending approval by the board of supervisors to the full board. >> okay. approval of item 7 to the full board. can i take that without opposition? okay. so moved. >> okay. madam clerk, any other business? city clerk: no, sir. we don't. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> >> good afternoon, everybody let me please call this meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission at the 1:40 p.m. sfgovtv requires you to speak into the microphone otherwise the public can't hear our discussion. call roll >> commissioner president courtney. commissioner moran. commissioner torres. conditioning and commissioner vietor are on their way a you tell me 3 is the approval of the minutes from february 11, 2014. commissioners >> move to accept. >> any public comment on the minutes of february 11, 2014, seeing none, public comment is closed. i'll call for a vote all all in favor, sa

finally according to ceqa categorical exemption form. this is page 3. the project planner checked the box for window replacement meets the department for window replacement standards. if it is determined the replacement window do not meet such standards then the project does not meet categorical exemption. with all of this in mind, it requests mr. speaker mierz to replace the windows without permit with wood framed windows required by the planning in order to maintain the integrity and beauty of our city. thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> commissioners mary gallagher.

finally according to ceqa categorical exemption form. this is page 3. the project planner checked the box for window replacement meets the department for window replacement standards.

declaration prepared under the california environmental quality act ceqaa for the hcsmp, and making ceqa findings. preliminary recommendation: adopt a recommendation item 1: sf 112341234 >> good morning commissioners. i'm coal deputy director. this represents a milestone in the work that we have done over the last 2 years. this is a result of the comprehensive data and community driven process that included a 40 member plus task force. many members are here in the audience today. a hundred plus community members were engaged as a part of this process. it's the result of legislation passed by supervisor campos and i know hilary from supervisor campos' office is here today. we presented a draft to you on july 16th at the health commission and july 18th at the planning commission. we received oral comment from the commissioners and the public at the meetings and written public comment afterwards. this draft that we are presenting you today is based on the comments we received and it will reflect the former draft and the draft before you today. this is an overview of my presentation. i will

the request is to adopt ceqa findings and overriding considerations and to ask the committee to release the remaining reserved funds to fund construction of the project. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? okay. thanks. we might be back in a minute. mr. rose, can we go to your report, please. >> yes, mr. chairman, regarding on the committee regarding item 6 under the proposed 2nd amendment between the puc and hrd which is

so, this was not submitted to us as an approval for ceqa review. >> so, there was no c-e-q-a, no environmental evaluation of the impact of the new pump? >> it was not. c-e-q-a evaluation not not required. >> that question remains, you know. i'm asking about whether or not environmental review that was done. i'm not asking whether it was required or not, whether you believe it was required or not. just wondering whether it was done. >> it was not done because it was not required. >> okay. all right. so, is, is part of the project expanding pumping operations? because that's one of the claims that is being made by the appellant. is that one of the, the goals, objectives, the points of the project? >> the proposed project, the pumphouse project does not -- would not change the amount of water that would be removed or the rate of water that would be removed. that is determined -- the rate of water is determined by the capacity of the pumps. there's two pumps. they're either on or off. they operate at a set rate. so, the rate of water does not change and would not change any of this project. the am

the request is to adopt ceqa findings and overriding considerations and to ask the committee to release the remaining reserved funds to fund construction of the project. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? okay. thanks. we might be back in a minute. mr. rose, can we go to your report, please. >> yes, mr. chairman, regarding on the committee regarding item 6 under the proposed 2nd amendment between the puc and hrd which is the contractor. hdr, the contract amount is increased by $1.5 million as the department has testimony and that would be from a $26 million to $27.5 million the contract between the puc and hdr for the peninsula region projects. on the bottom of page 31 shown in table one on that page the proposed budget for

if it doesn't, do you need that flexibility that was not in the previous ceqa are? >> thank you. senator, we do need that. as i noted and as i go into greater detail in my written statement, and i would add one other thing. i appreciate your comments about trying to prioritize budgets. governors probably know more about this than anyone. >> i have had concerns about afghanistan since i arrived here years ago. i am not of the belief that 10,000 troops being left in afghanistan will trade the direction. i have always said if money or military might would change that part of the world, we would have done so by now. knowing the unknown as far as elections coming up, do you truly have a plan for pulling out of afghanistan? i know it has been said the president has been given the order to move in that direction. are we moving in that direction? >> first, i want to speak briefly. you mentioned if we go back to sequestration, does that mean we need more flexibility? absolutely, but flexibility alone will not answer our problems. the draconian way it was being administered is not fair to

if it doesn't, do you need that flexibility that was not in the previous ceqa are? >> thank you. senator, we do need that. as i go intod greater detail in my written add onet, and i would other thing. i appreciate your comments about trying to prioritize budgets. governors probably know more about this than anyone. >> i have had concerns about afghanistan since i arrived here years ago. thatnot of the belief 10,000 troops being left in afghanistan will trade the direction. i have always said if money or military might would change that part of the world, we would have done so by now. knowing the unknown as far as elections coming up, do you truly have a plan for pulling out of afghanistan? i know it has been said the president has been given the order to move in that direction. are we moving in that direction? >> first, i want to speak briefly. you mentioned if we go back to weuestration, does that mean need more flexibility? absolutely, but flexibility alone will not answer our problems. the draconian way it was being administered is not fair to anyone. >> on afghanistan, as you

item no. 8 you are adopting the motion to rel -- release the funds after approved by ceqa. >> item no. 7 we can move to the full board. >> so moved. >> item no. 8 release pending approval by the board of supervisors to the full board. >> okay. approval of item 7 to the full board. can i take that without opposition? okay. so moved. >> okay. madam clerk, any other business? city clerk: no, sir. we don't. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >>@p