supervisor chu: can you speak about what those mitigation might be?

supervisor chu: can you speak about what those mitigation might be?essentially, there are two different pathways. the first is to better seal the home against infiltration, a normal upgrade that has been promoted. we would hope to leverage those existing funding streams. the second stream that we are interested in is to take the forces in and create a better quality of circulation in the home, so that there is more illustration of particulate matter. our goal is to -- more filtration of particulate matter. our goal is to create homes with duct work, especially low- income homes, with families who have these health risks -- including as much, respiratory disease, and premature mortality. overall, it can only be in the home that receives these benefits. by assessing them and addressing them as effective interventions, we can create ongoing policy for these developments, related to leveraging energy grants, helping us to comply. i think it is a great project on that level. it also takes the existing structure -- there have already been a number of servic

i will present the talking points regarding the final mitigated-declaration appeal. then i will continue on to the cu and, with president chiu's permission, ceded the rest of my time to a member of the cow hollow association. the overarching point before us today is about transparency and consistency and processed. the cha is entitled to a full and complete objective analysis under ceqa, rather than go through all of the points that the association has put forward or referred to you in the written materials and discussed what i think are the most important. first, the city violated ceqa by failing to perform required analysis before approving the project. before approving a project subject to ceqa, the city must consider a final eir or neg dec. the california supreme court has emphasized that ceqa requires environmental review to refer to products first rather than final approval. by lending its political and financial assistance to this project, the city, as a practical matter, has committed itself to the project. in august of 2009, the mayor's office of housing iss

>> we have a terrific mitigation program. getting ready to launch. we have $22 million to provide cash incentives for people to mitigate their homes. so we got a lot of things going on. thank you. >> before you start, one thing i wanted to mention, i have a former colleague, lori johnson, not to put you on the spot. lori has done a lot of research on cobay and also on new orleans. i just want to know, if there's anything specific you have that could add to this discussion. you don't have to. i know i'm putting you on the spot. given the opportunity. all right. [laughter] ok. >> good morning. this question is a two-part question. probably would be best directed to barbara. one of the things is, as being an administrator of a church in the bay area, a vulnerable community, being part of the inner faith council, have you contacted or have m.o.u.'s with any other churches in which you could have health departments set up in there with emergency medical supplies or anything in case of an earthquake in the area so that we would already be a part of the cit

there is no mitigation, no plans into require stabilization of the upper slopes. there is significant evidence before you that there are problems with that, with the whole car sell, -- the whole parcel, it is basically a cliff. the whole thing is explaining why he should not allow a subdivision prior to doing and are meant to review. whatever reason this applicant has for requesting a subdivision, it has to do with a reasonably foreseeable development of the site. we have a lot of ceqa cases, environmental cases the sec, he should not segment environmental approval. you're supposed to look at the issues as early as possible in the planning prospect. hear, the subdivision is step one, next is reasonably foreseeable development. if you get a supreme court case law that says if you have a receipt -- a reasonable foreseeable devout man, take a look at the whole thing. why not look on the proposed development on the smaller side, which is reasonably perceivable even if we do not have an application yet. that is the point of this. but get it all together so you can figu

the mitigation is the caps were you retrofit a water heater and mitigate those hazards. our end as the recovery and. we wind up as recovery even though we are seen as more of a response. this is not only getting dollar amounts for how much there is. how can we get everybody back in their building? that is the recovery that could be long term or could be years. building occupancy you program -- was at a meeting yesterday and this city is pushing more than ever with real estate to get off city buildings. they already have a pre designed team. your pre deputized and you don't have to wait for us to come. this is critical to recovery. part of the department of emergency management is supposed to be tying all of this together. that is their key role, so don't waste resources and there's not an overlap and three departments are not asking for the same thing. they are trying to coordinate with us. >> is there also an approach to shelter in place? there are times when there is not going to be enough time for people to stay and move elsewhere. >> when we talk about shelter in pla

the litigation measures have been agreed to buy the project sponsor and a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. the department's response to the primary concerns raised by the appellate can be grouped into the four main points. two related to the environmental review process and two related to the fmnd. the department maintains that the preliminary maintained negative declaration was properly circulated. and the city complied with the california environmental quality act, or ceqa, prior to any approval. in response to the substance- related concerns, the department asserts that the project density would not result in any significant impact. and the fmn,'s analysis was inadequate. preparation of an eir is not warranted. in one process-related issue is the circulation of the pmnd. the department circulated it for a 20-day review period, consistent with the ceqa requirements. the project is not a statewide, regional, or area significance as defined by ceqa, therefore it did not require a 30-day review period or circulation to the state agencies cited by the appellants.

they don't know if obama says we'll mitigate the loan, the interest rate. mitigate the rate., you want to see that better. very quickly, they will borrow at 0%, which they can, from the fed discount window. loan it back, buying treasurys. buy treasuries in the open market and get 3%. every bank has access to this. $30 million out of $1 billion loan in risk-free profit. >> bob: put the silly board away. i don't need a chart to tell you this. those are the same banks that are willing to take the taxpayers money to bail them out. now they should bail out the taxpayers. >> greg: they were bailed out by the government. the government did. that >> bob: right. screw them then. don't give them any bail-out money. >> greg: that was not their choice. that was the government's choice. >> bob: it wasn't their choice? they beg hat in hand for that. >> greg: they weren't begging. nobody knows how many people will be affected by this. that's how a government program works. you don't need to know the results. >> bob: what if it's only $100,000? >> eric: the banks are unaffected by the progra

in 2009, another independent company prepared a risk assessment report in order to mitigate risk and figure with the risks of would be. that was peer review in 2009 by local power inc.. in 2009, that a draft term sheet was prepared for the sfpuc usage. i just want to reiterate that this is an amazing opportunity for the city and county of san francisco. it is not a program without risks, as are all new programs, but i believe that your staff, the sfpuc, has mitigated that risk. and you will hear during the presentation how that is done. it is also not without cost. because when you start any new program, with that risk, there's obviously a cost. once again, i think the staff has done an excellent job of minimizing the cost and planning on how to deal with the costs as the program moves forward. your own 2011 updated electricity resource plan that i believe was approved by the sfpuc includes7 as one of the -- includes cca to meet the mayor's 100% a renewable goal. so it is understandable that our staff and the lafco staff is recommending that our commission approved the updated term s

in order to mitigate a potentially large rebuild, we have absorbent some of the scope of work that was originally in the rebuild, absorbed into the generator project, ink -- impacting the generator project. we are up against the $18 million limit. forecasts are requesting a limit of 25 million to replenish some of what was eroded by the additional scope of work. also, in anticipation of encountering other issues on the first floor. right now, the project is wrapping up. when the generators go live, we go to the first floor with turbines, reconfiguring the boilers. we expect to encounter similar issues. so, leslie and in conclusion, support of this resolution will allow us to meet the original objective of restoring reliable emergency power while also maintaining the original schedule with the added benefit of shifting a good benefit of work from the contracts on the rebuild to smaller, local contractors that are advancing the generator project. with a quick overview, i can address any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analysts report. >> madam chair, members

they have already agreed to 4 mitigations on neighbor's requests. we are providing 24/7 staffing. we have a desk coverage 24 hours a day, six days a week. we created over 3000 square feet of community space. we have limited overnight guests to over 10 per month. we committed to forming a project advisory committee that would be present through the operation stage of the process. upon execution of this agreement, the neighborhood group walked away. they decided to come here today and have their administrative appeal. they were unable to reach a partnership with us. we feel that we made every attempt possible under current law and regulations to address the neighbor's concerns. the kids will have a lease. they will sign it. they will have topay rent and be a good neighbor. we feel this has the right set of tools to be a successful project. i will now how barcelona to come forward to talk to you about the design of the building. >> good evening. i would like to distribute some drawings to the board. 13 there. there is also -- >> your time is continuing. >> we have been doing affordab

a comment on that, how we can improve things with regard to mitigation?>> i have found both the estate and the steam administrator that we put a lot of emphasis on the stafford act. it is a section number and doesn't mean anything to anybody else but there is part of the stafford act this is if you have damages and we are going to give you money to repair it, we also need to look at doesn't make sense to build it back better, to reduce future damages? under that section would look at things such as the cost benefit analysis that says, we realized the building code may be for why -- 110-mile an hour winds but if we build this roof back to 130 or 140 because it is a public safety building, and that building survives next time is that not a good investment? this is money that is tied to the actual damages. we have another part of a program called section 404 which provides an overall percentage of funds to the state after mitigation that doesn't have to necessarily be tied to damage properties which may allow them to mitigate other threats and particularly w

the initial study identified in the mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than severe levels. the project sponsor agree to this measure and the department issued a pmnd. the project loan approval is not considered a project approval under ceqa and therefore we approve the loans before the ceqa analysis. i would like to address the issues raised by the appellant. the offense of the density increase. the proposed density increase from 16 to 24 units was analyzed. while the project would result in an increase in group housing density, the department's found its assets would be less than significant under ceqa. with regard to land use, the project would not specifically divide an established community, conflict with land use policies adopted for the purposes of environmental litigation, it would not conflict with a conservation plan, and it would also not sit -- substantially impact the existing character of the project the city. thus, the project would not have a significant land use impact. in addition, the project would not result in significant impacts to population and housi

the recreation section identified a mitigation measures at the very end, which is to restore the play ability of the sharp park golf course as an 18- hole course. after that litigation section, there is a programmatic analysis of the impact of the mitigation measure. there are two options proposed program radically. one is to restore the whole on the east side of the highway and the other is to restore the whole on the west side of the highway. that project would need to be further evaluated. it is only addressed programmatic lee and recreation and park would have to come back for environmental clearance to do that. commissioner antonini: thank you. i would say would every need to do to make sure you end up with an 18-hole course is important. also work with the gulf alliance and the other people he spoke to make sure we are as close to the historic design as possible, but where there are situations where even without the frog and snake habitat issue, it's a losing battle with nature. we have to make sure we make a course that is going to work. thank you for your work on this. i will

this is getting people off the street, especially those that mitigate the likelihood that they will be back on the street, whether this is substance abuse or economic downturn, quality housing, lack of jobs, whatever the case may be. this is definitely one category where we need to be more vigorous. >> let's talk about crime in your district. you said that this is one of the major issues in your district. do you have any ideas on how you are dealing with this? >> i have been very outspoken on this issue, or i feel like the city could step up its game, in dealing with -- one way that we could do this is to reflect on the tried and true strategies that worked very well in san francisco. i legislated, the police get out of their cars and walk the beats. i use this as a petrie dish to show that by having a greater interface, between the community and the police, this would go beyond the symbolic back and forth. this would go to building trust, or trust had not been. with the distressed communities of color and the police department, this was working. this was working very well. but the pol

. >> host: this is c-span's can mitigators program. we are talking with someone who is the director of information security issues at the government accountability office. a new report out on the security of federal information that is available on our web site, c-span.org/communicators. jill aitoro of the "washington business journal" is also with us today. mr. wilshusen again just to follow-up on jill's question, is there a governmentwide system or standard that is used for security information, or is it each agency does what each agency wants? >> guest: there are governor marc -- government wide standards that are developed and promulgated by the national institute of standards and technology. in addition, it also issue special publications and these are information security guidelines that are recommended or suggested for federal agencies to use. in addition, omb, office of management and budget issues policy memorandums as part of its oversight role of federal activities, so there are governmentwide policies and procedures as well