source of power it's important to note that clean construction mitigation has been a requirement at ceqa and states projecting in the hot zone will be using cleaner requirements by the standard of our city projects we're streamlining the process for public projects previously we would do a separate air quality analysis to tell us what we already know and impose the mitigation measures adding time and measures for the mitigating process now i'm going to bring up staff from the planning department i think we have w5id and department of public health karen to briefly go over thank you go over with us a little bit about the legislation so it's at staff short presentation. >> thank you. >> i'm karen on behalf of the health department to offer our support and reiterate the things that supervisor just told you all i know i've shown this committee if f this graphic before and the purpose of this graphic from e ta to really enforce the information caused by particularly matter and dell sale it caused cardiovascular disease a good illumination i want to point out that part of failure heart conditi

ceqa not always being intuitive, but ceqa knows about factual evidence. there are facts in the record and independently evaluated facts that say what happened on stuart street based on evidence, there is 23-foot notes that cite to documents research elements and cultural that made clear going back in time that we can document for purposes of the evaluation and the preservation of the stuart street facade that this facade was differentiated from embarcadero facade first and foremost by the stuart street facade. i want to make it clear that the record does state this facade. i want to move to the connection from the preservation of the building for historical significance of the building and architect garren who submitted last week and supported. let me deal with architect gairhan. nobody has heard of him and they can't provide proof that he was the architect for this building. if he was the architect in the bay area and contributed to the architecture style that the appellants claim, they would have found that. that would have been found when the project w

as the 2009 element and no supplemental is required therefore the department has pursued an element ceqa alex section provides for the. >> of an addendum not to provide supplemental irs and certified eir as articulated throughout our addendum it will contain the objectives and policies and measures that could affect the environment those are the policies that direct the city and increase the decency for certain types of projects and the residential building and promote energy efficient development and neighborhood services and along transit recites puc like the 2009 element the 2014 didn't propose any projects or zoning changes and no zoning changes are required under state law because we meet the housing meetings needs or the housing element morph is n it does mother add more housing policies the 2014 housing element low instead provide general direction for the housing and if it is in response to the emphasis an that affordability the 5 policies added for the 2014 housing element will not be expected to build 0 any impact in the f e r and the - next i'd like to respond to public commen

too project could not go forward without a ceqa document. until there is this negative declaration upheld and affirmed by this form or some environmental report completed. without that, no project can move forward on this site. >> same as the indemnitial review departmental review who have to be conducted. >> yes. any planning review would be avoided by the board of supervisors over turning this internal document. they would have to start over with the process. they would have to go back and do whatever of the environmental review is required and go back and get the earlier approvals already received and another appeal would have to be filed if it needs to come back on this board for another appeal. >> could the department come for approvals after the environmental review. in other words if there is a subsequent environmental review the project could still be approved. >> assuming whatever project is proposed has the environmental review finalized for it. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank yo

i would like to know what the conclusion is and how it applies and therefore not a ceqa issue. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president and i just wanted to follow up on the questions that supervisor kim was asking and specifically going back to the issue of the embarcadero side (paused). is that correct that at this time the finding was with respect to the building, the entire building? >> yes. sara jones environmental review officer. in 2009 the board of supervisors did find that the building -- or did conclude that the building should be considered a historical resource so demolition of that building as was proposed under that project would be a significant impact and require an eir. >> okay thank you. what i am having a hard time understanding is how it is that planning can say on one hand the talk about the steuart street facade and its significance, but not on the embarcadero side, so can you once again explain to me what your rational is because if you're talking about an entire building having an historical significance -- take city hall a

language for buildings that aren't article 10 or 11, but would be considered historic resources under ceqa or some other -- i bring this up because i was living in new york when they adopted a similar ordinance and basically what happened is owners inspected their facades and pretty much cornices were chopped off across the city because my cornice is falling off and i don't have the million dollars to fix it. these were historic buildings that weren't landmark buildings. >> i think it's obviously this is before you for review and comment. you are certainly welcome to add such a comment and we would encourage that. i think when we were drafting these reptions our feeling was that article 10 and 11 were very clear because they are designated under the planning code but certainly i think that those concerns are warranted and we would be happy to express those comments on to the sponsors of this legislation. >> one other question on a different subject. in the ordinance and in this document there's a lot about the inspection but almost nothing about what the maintenance -- what maintenance is

completion but typically attorney fee are a action come before us after a project is tiled or after ceqalearance has been issued this is not the case here so what i'm doing is quite a few calling a red flag on the process and issues i've got concerns this action by the board of supervisors to apply for bond financing sends the wrong message to the public we're prejew the merits of this project and by passing the tire ceqa project i know you identify with any concerns at this time i want to ask the city attorney to share wasn't you've told me mr. gibner. >> sure john gibner deputy city attorney under the stalling the city must complete whatever level of review required under ceqa before committing the city to a type of that action this particular resolution is not requiring the environmental review it will be completed before the board or so any other city body takes that kind of approval action so you are not committing the city to this project you're only approving the first step of laughing the financing to move forward with the first steps of bond and the environmental review will be

are going to go and how this links to the environmental impact report is you have to analyze under ceqa do you have environmental impacts related to providing housing somewhere go for people your relocating it's necessary but we have to be realistic where those people are going and the environmental reviews in san francisco providing the units this needs to show up and having no requirement as a mitigation measure is not sufficient environmental justice is an offshoot of that under ceqa i look at the environmental justice and having people living on site a 9 or 15 year project we need to look at the mitigation measure needs to be the protection against the construction methods that are already laid out here i think on that piece not necessarily the eir in total isn't sufficient but the mitigation is not required and there are mitigation measures against noise and dust transit impacts laid out here it needs to be added under the environmental justice pieces second major area that i pointed out was public services and again here mitigation measure and the summer summary impacting impact i

this project had environmental review issue with ceqa exemption under the building permit. it is supported by the union square business district, the mjm management group, which is the onsite property management and mayor's office on disability and rpd staff. >> is there questions? is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> entertainment a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> a. >> so moved. >> we're now on item 84-84 guide place approval of conceptual plan. overhead. ? >> good morning commissioners and gung hay hat choy, marvin yee. the item before you is for approval of the concept plan for a park in rincon hill. this item remains on the calendar, although it did receive the capital committee's recommendation for approval. it remains on the calendar due to outstanding questions that were not answered at the last meeting. as presented at the committee hearing, this project was generated through a public process. it gained community support and we received emails of support for the conc

because i know sometimes that happens at ceqa and you have to go back and upgrade your ceqa document, because too many years had taken place between when you had it approved and when you first put a shovel in the ground. >> i will have counsel respond to that. >> director harper, we wouldn't anticipate there would be a substantial or significant change in the environment or in the project or in the context of the project that would necessitate refreshing that. >> with all of the construction going on, there won't be any new buildings that we would have to think about? >> yes, lots of development, but no significant environment impacts as a result of that development. >> all right. >> thank you again for a very comprehensive report and representing district and the neighbors, i'm really pleased to see all the community outreach that happened and the media articles in terms of educating members of the public with the importance of the project and understanding the construction timeline and process so that our residents understand the importance of the construction and how that happens.

we have $1 million in sunk costs related to the ceqa process which in the determination of public works is not transferable to a new site so that is specific to this site that is lost but more importantly is the escalation costs of the construction project. overall this is a $165 million project, 16 million of which is allocated for the acquisition, so the estimate is if we had to secure a new site and go through ceqa for approval of the site and looking at cost to 7- $15 million in inflationary costs of the project assuming the project did not have to be redesigned so that's a minimum expense for delay. >> okay. supervisor tang. >> thank you. i think supervisor christensen posed one of the questions i was going to ask and the complications we have with passing these general obligation bond measures and the process that we have to engage in because of that. want like a typical sales transaction like buying a private home for example so one of the issues that i wanted to raise going back to the issue with appraisals is although it was done in 2014 based on the information i received and

appeal when we heard the ceqa appeal on the pilot program the opts modest the argument that mta was ironics wrong and we don't have the authority to enter into that with shuttle drivers there were members of the board of supervisors that expressed agreement it was illegal to enter into that i've not spoken to the author of this legislation i can't speak for him in terms of his motivation, in fact, there's a law pevend that is illegal for the mta underline state law to enter into state law with the shuttle drivers this clarifies that and i think that the staffs again, i'm not making a motion to support this this is in the early stamps but we can tell it is moving in the direction to clarify state law those kinds of agreements are permissible that's why we should move to a watch position. >> any further discussion just to recap a motion made to reverse the decision from the finance commission - committee to the prefer decision by the finance committee to oppose sate bill 61 and that was seconded by supervisor tang mr. clerk but with let could roll call vote. >> let's take public comme

want to reopen documentation it is important to go ahead and do so and meet all the requirements of ceqa san francisco puc is as busy as any agency they've been in their lifetime we want to make sure we gave me them early with the waterlines project and starting to evaluate alternative construction delivery methods that we'll see whether or not their feasible and bring to the committees and board in the future we learned add lesson on the ramp project is that the birds don't know what month of year when it's warm they start nest so we envision an early contract on the contract that was a delay because of bird nest issues that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for you thorough presentation. >> commissioner christensen. >> i was occurs about the aesthetic and environmental impacts of the two choices we're certainly seeking in the presidio a modern preference for low profile and integrated roadways so up until the parrot of retaining walls i was thinking the preferred approach would have visible and environmental improvements what happens to the

market street to basically permit arcades on the first story and second-story the big item was the ceqa appeal for embarcadero that was an appeal of the final mitigated declaration for a one-story building and the renovation for the common club of california it is located on the embarcadero and stuart street the negative declaration identified it as eligible for the california places due to the association with the longs short-term strike the department determined the practice writing project did not say it was any significance not impacting the 12r9 street facade the appellant contended otherwise several of the members spoke for and against several of the members of the i o w union spoke in support and the congesting to preserve the building and former folks also spoke in favor of holding the m.d. supervisor avalos and supervisor campos asked numerous questions for the resource and kim asked about the street trees and they upheld it unanimously in 2012 supervisor kim made a motion to reject the appeal a and it was unanimously passed and the emergency shelter ordinance received its firs

slightly in the upcoming year they've experienced a large increase in application review requiring ceqa review the division has been macro concert effort by adjusting and changing the internal processes and expand staff

to accommodate a disability pursuant to planning department practices and procedures to affirm the ceqa determination and establishing the appropriate findings. >> can we take this item same house same call without objection this ordinance -- excuse me, before i move on, supervisor wiener. >> thank you for item no. 21. colleagues, this legislation is part of the ongoing work around our updates to city's 2014 housing elements and specifically it prescribes a process for a person with a disability to apply for reasonable accommodations in the planning code. this is important to people with disabilities have full access to housing to make sure that people can age in place in their own homes and that people with mobility challenges or other disabilities have the same access to housing as everyone else. it will take the form of administrative variance and this is long overdue step to make sure that everyone has access to housing in san francisco. >> thank you supervisor wiener. not seeing any another names on the roster, colleagues can we take item no. 21 same house, same call? without objec

ceqa issues -- they can be divided into people, [inaudible] and block. [inaudible] came to prominence while in this building. the wounded were cared for in this building. (inaudible) with the only committee which is ridiculous. the history and the role can not be denied. proposed modern glass facade is clearly inconsistent with the planning code which calls for conserving and protecting neighborhood character. we filed the original appeal on july 15 a few hours before the deadline and it was asked that the submission be extended and submitted a letter "the proposed project would replace the facade with a glass curtain wall and noted that the character and integrity of the building and block facing of the embarcadero will largely be transformed. he then noted that the mitigating activities should be 11-foot 6-inch setback of a new third floor across the entire length of the steuart street elevation to clearly differentiate the facade of the third story. this mitigating activity has not been done. the project sponsor claims only the steuart street facade i

appeal when we heard the ceqa appeal on the pilot program the opts modest the argument that mta was ironics wrong and we don't have the authority to enter into that with shuttle drivers there were members of the board of supervisors that expressed agreement it was illegal to enter into that i've not spoken to the author of this legislation i can't speak for him in terms of his motivation, in fact, there's a law pevend that is illegal for the mta underline state law to enter into state law with the s

so the architecture and that's a part of ceqa where there is an architecture involved in this. as far as the person, how about the side of hairy bridges. the fact that he was no the in the building doesn't matter. what about the other people and heroic doctors who treated them. they are significant persons and they were in this building. they presented no evidence that the union was only on one side of this building. they have a map that shows no definite wall between the second floor. they are also showing maps of the first floor. so keep in mind the club is moving into temporary headquarters for the next 2 years. so there is time to send this back to planning make some sense of this. the club originally planned to have a more appropriate facade for the embarcadero side. bring that out and go back to that. thanks very much. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. at this time this hearing has been held and is now closed. the item is in the hands of the board of supervisors. supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, madam pr