so the fact that one lane is mitigated. there is other transit in the area and some find the on time performance of the transit providers is not acceptable but this last that is a separate matter for how we analyze ceqa. >> at some point don't luke at the cumulative impacts of these additional projects. at what point does that come into play. we've had that discussion here that where a transit first city which we are very proud of and development after development is happening that there is no connection between individual developments making sure their contributions making sure we are transit first. >> i would like to address your question broadly with regard to how we look at with regard to cumulative impacts. yes, this area has experienced a great deal of change. this is change that was anticipated when the area was evaluated and identified for the eastern neighborhood in rezoning man that this program was under way and the development that has occurred within the area is consistent with the development that was anticipa

negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd12341234 item 130897:[affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion affirming the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd12341234 item 130898:[reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act by the planning commission for a project located at 1050 valencia street. clerk of the boardd 1234 item 130899:declaration - 1050 valencia street] motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings reversing the approval of a final mitigated negative declar

degette that your job was to identify issues and mitigate them. and since would've liked to have more time and your job was to mitigate them, which have liked to have seen this whole report from mckinsey that identified ththe problems we did not defind about? >> i don't -- actually i don't think it was necessary because i think this report was for really for marilyn tavenner and others. and it was written for that level of consumption, and that audience. >> but you haven't seen it or you don't know? or do you know? >> i'm just assuming. >> stick with the faction no. seeing is from our john, -- all have briefings on this. are those any people you work with? >> i've been in meetings with several of those. >> since march and april? >> yes. >> and none of them raise any of these concerns to you who come into identify just up it was your job to identify these issues and mitigate them. that none of them identified with all these interviews, the 200 documents reviewed that there were these problems? >> within my day-to-day operational requirements to man

but the mitigation measures that were identified would railways this impact to less than significant level. that's the summary of the eirs finding. that concludes my presentation and we're here to a answer your questions >> commissioners, i have no speaker cards. >> commissioners, do we have any comments? >> first i do. >> commissioner pearlman. i had a question looking at the partial and the full preservation alternatives highway they were arrived at because as an architect i know there's an infinite number of ways to do that. so i'm wondering how the department determined what those would be? >> shelly preservation staff we worked with the consultant to try to craft a project to meet the standards as close as possible. some of the perimeters wore to get below the threshold defining the demolition. we use article 10 for demolition in our sequa analysis just for some parallel review between our sequa review and other reviews in our department. essentially, we neat to do preserve about 50 percent of the building materials in order to stable the threshold. in order to create a feasible

the noise issues and analyzed under ceqa are mitigated. they were raised in the context of the discretionary review hearing but there were further conditions applied through that process and rich dra can address that. >> yes. as part of the discretionary review of the planning commission. planning commission ultimatelly struck a balance between limiting the hours from 7:00 a.m.-6 :00 p.m. it would allow construction. they did strike a balance in terms of looking at limiting it from 5:00 or preventing activity on the weekends and ultimately decided to strike a compromise and recognizing that limiting the hours further might extend the construction timeframe. >> okay. thank you. colleagues any further questions to the planning department. seeing none, let's hear from the presentation by the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, evening, supervisors, ruben and rose, attorneys for the project response ofrment i would like to make a brief comment on the ceqa document which would any significant effects on the environment. i would like to reiterat

studyre was a 2009 gao that recommended -- to mitigate fire suppression. to reduce the needs of transferring funds. can you talk to us a little bit, 25 seconds worth, about some of the steps that the fire service mitigate funding needs for fire suppression? have a pretty good predictive services group. the scientists behind that tell us what that is likely to cost us in a given year based on weather patterns, setting up well in advance of the season in the pacific ocean. those predictions have been accurate. we have a good idea of that, it is finding the money to deal with those emergencies, those large fire set escape, that really become emergencies and big. that is what we need to probably have more conversation about is how to finance second of suppression. >> thank you for your hard work, . . hubbard trade had an opportunity in the days and weeks that followed to perhaps harvest some of the wood before it started to degrade form beatles and fungus. in this case it is easy to see how permitting delays was getting at the time sensitive nature of your wor

job is to mitigate them. none of them identified that with all of these interviews that there were these problems? take over my cell . day-to-day operational requirements to manage the contract, manage staff. , >> what you don't measure, you can't manage. so i'm concerned thatted this of people who you work with were not communicating to you document that you knew something existed because you were interviewed on it yourself. but here we have this messy rollout that didn't work, that crashed, that only six people the first day.

chow, were all high risks identified in this assessment, mitigated before october 1st? >> yes. >> thank you. what your answers confirm is that the system works. they identified potentially high security risks and cms made sure they were mitigated before they would become major problems. the media reports do not show a flawed system. they show that cms conducted security control assessments to identify problems and then fixed those problems. i hope that my republican colleagues will keep these findings in mind when they talk about the security of health care.gov. we don't want to alarm the public about security risks that have already been addressed by cms and its contractors. it seems to me that identifying risks that were named, it's important also to note that they were all fixed before the launch on object 1st, and i thank you very much for your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you. >> the gentle lady yields back, and i recognize the gentlelady from north carolina. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chow, for being with us today. i have a question about the subsidies and

i understand about mitigating on risk. on day one, marilyn tavier is signing a document saying there are risks out there. >> what you do is under risk base approach look at the probability of a particular risk occurring and you prioritize and for example, one of the mitigation steps was to conduct weekly security testing and to report back to the administrator on the results of that security testing. >> during that testing process, did you find some data was misrouted? once it was launched? are insurance companies getting information that's incorrect? >> there were cases in which insurance company was getting data that were not incorrectly routed to them but incorrectly formatted within a transaction. >> do you know who briefed marilyn tavenner on the security risk? do you know who sat down with her? >> it was our chief information officer and chief information security officer. >> two other questions. is there a way to track what personal information any employees can see we're working on this? we have a lot of contractor

i ask this be added as mitigation measure. in the absence you have not find this in good faith that the on-site interior sound would be been wn the legal requirements. that would be saying there won't be anymore armed robberies in san francisco because there is a law to stop that. unless laws are enforced, they are not complied with. we need a mitigation measure to enforce it. no. 2, the marsh is also a sound inspect ofrment . it is a school for children from ages 5-15. it identifies near schools of city college a block away. second, it is a neighborhood theatre. if you are going expand our definition of sound receptors in theatres located in the heart of the neighborhoods. we must adopt mitigation measures that limit this noise from construction and projects for a performance theatre. this is a threshold much lower for most uses. finally for someone who watches this from the early 2000s. >> thank you very much. next speaker.a hello, my name is courtney, first sunlight, the building is going to cat -- cast a shadow on our stre

the mta services and the appropriation for the transportation fund that would be priority tied to mitigate the prosecutors that l have been identified in the entity analysis and establish an inspection general and limit the fair increases in the customer price index and establish the 18 and under not be charged. there was a number of items on there it's a draft charter amendment >> and we'll see that. >> we'll bring things for discussion prior to the finalizing for the voter. >> i'd like to see that. there's a lot of adversarial parts on that. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a question regarding third street and alcoholic liquor license. i'm unaware of people growing wine in san francisco but it might be new >> yeah. there was introduced. i have a feeling it's more not for a vineyard >> is commissioner borden. >> people grew grapes back then but we have pictures when the streets were red from the wine. >> that's amazing. >> a little fun thing. >> commissioners, i do have a report from the zoning administrator from the board of appeals they met last night and heard one case a

say thisright to evidence is mitigated? if a defendant comes in and says i cannot control my behavior, i cannot stop myself from killing people or from committing crimes , is that a sympathetic claim? going to think then you should go back on the street? probably not. is welly question before we have an answer. in this case they refuse to cooperate with the introduction of mitigating this on their capital sentencing phase of the trial. later after refusing, he says i an assistance to counsel because they did not present any mitigating evidence on my behalf. >> you do not let them. it goes up to the ninth circuit. i would have cooperative. my father was violent. my grandfather was violent. there is a heritable basis for the violence in our family. said we thinkuit it is probably pretty unlikely that if the jury had heard a violenthat he was killer who's genetically programmed to be violent from the fact that he comes from a long line of violent killers that it would be all that compelling. united state the supreme court. is

and the testimony we heard today we find the mitigated nag dak was adequate and appropriately issued. the building would not result in a significant effect on the environment with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. thereof we believe that the mitigated nag dak for the environment and other issues whether the project, scale or architectural style and we found that they would not. the department's response to the concerns raised are fully contained. in my time now i would like to cover 5 points. they relate to why the project would not have significant effect to the architectural style and significant plans and policies and why the project would not

i think of this environment we're dealing with threat mitigation. we're going mitigate that threat. saints vulnerable. we're not going eliminate vulnerabilities unfortunately. the one thing i have on that is in other areas we have agreed, for example, you don't drive cars when they're going explode. we think it's unacceptable. having planeses that tumble from the sky is like wise unacceptable. having hardware immediately subject to vulnerable to infryings is unacceptable. actually it's not. we accept there are updates provided to the computers because they are in fact. perhapses inherently subject to some vulnerable. i make the point so awe live in an environment we are mitigating the problems. in a way that is very even handed to address the issues that -- >> steve. holding it up. i can say that. i would rather start on the highest end of that question of where the private sector should be and touch upon some of the comment i've made earlier. which again would require a sort of par dpiem shift. a paradigm shift, which we try to realize internet and technologies from a security pers

i think that's a critical component to making sure that at least the funding for the mitigation stays stable even in the face of all of these keep heading and cholera has been hit time and time again by fires and floods and other issues and floods related to fires. i think that is a critical component that fire suppression has to be also looked at as an emergency so it does not do harm to what we are trying to prevent. >> we appreciate that. your area has been the frontline of that or it might time has well expired. i have probably exhausted that line of questioning. >> [inaudible] you have such interesting background with forest service and over on the house side in the appropriate committee -- for all of us that would like to spend more money on the front and and less on the back and get away from this fire borrowing, do you have any final words of advice about how we can make that case or what we should be thinking about in terms of approach? investments work so well. commissioner clark mentioned a 5 to 1 return on the street we cannot afford not to do the upfront work and we know

we have law to mitigate the impacts. and i come back to this obviously i have read the law and this is a discretionary action and discretionary should be used in this case. we can't say that they can't use this for 24 story building i'm not saying that. you come back and go to thirty stories you've got to pay in corporation big sales force you've got to pay into affordable housing my muni and childcare. thank you >> thank you. minnesota anything further you have 3 minutes >> hi, tim for the project sponsor. it's a little bit odd. i'm having a hard time understanding what ms. hesitating take care is actually after. what would happen if you were to do what she proposed and deny the planning commissions or overturn the planning commissioners approval for the 6 stories. kilroy would continue building the building and pay the fees at the first certificate of occupancy in 2015. and none of the fees for the addition that aren't due until 2015 would get paid early that's another 3 and a half million dollars. so, you know, it see

there are 6 ayes and 5 was nos. >> the mitigation is affirmed. we have a lot of items in front of us. i suggest we go briefly to columns. there are a lot of people waiting to hear our discussion. please call item 14. >> 130799. >> [roll call vote taken] supervisor breed, aye, campos, aye, supervisor chiu, aye, supervisor cohen, aye, ferrel aye, kim aye, supervisor mar, aye, tang aye, supervisor wiener. ordinance is passed. item 15: 130937 administrative code film production daily use fees film rebate program. ordinance amending the administrative to code to reduce daily use fee for film productions. >> supervisor ferrel. thank you. i want to thank the supervise for your support in this measure. there is a number of productions applying for the number of rebates that continue to rise. the film media program always been about jobs in san francisco and by supporting our arts in the community as our technology community continues to grow and unquantifiable ability for our city to be on the big screen on our tv screen and the city pride that comes wit

, did they, in fact, work to mitigate those risks? >> in the context of the sca, yes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> had you seen this document before today? >> i am familiar of the document. it's been a while. >> so when today say they've been working to mitigate challenges, you are personally aware that some of these mitigations were taking place or you're just saying so today? >> no. i have no idea telephone whether they took the recommendations -- >> i was curious. so that's based upon a guess today. >> yes. >> quick thing. mr. amsler, while developing the security measures for the cloud environment, have you encountered any challenges at all? >> certainly, lots of challenges along the way. congressman, did you mean more implementing them or certain things? >> some things that are different from what you're used to here or anything standing out to you that's a concern with regard to the cloud environment and security there? >> well, the cloud in itself brings a unique set of damages that us in the industry are all trying

i think in this environment, we are dealing with threat mitigation. we are going to mitigate that threat. we are also dealing with vulnerabilities. vulnerability mitigation. we are not going to eliminate vulnerabilities, unfortunately. the one thought i have on that, in other areas, we agreed you don't drive cars when they rear end they explode, that is unacceptable. having planes that tumble from the sky is likewise unacceptable. having computer hardware that is immediately subject to or vulnerable to intrusion is unacceptable. actually, it's not. we actually have accepted that as a model. we accept that there are updates that are provided to our computers because they, in fact, are perhaps inherently subject ul

not completed days before the launch which, quote, constitutes a risk that must be accepted and mitigated. mike rogers saysvel attempts at hacking have been successful and called for much more comprehensive testing. >> yes or no, has an end-to-end security test on healthcare.gov went live? yes or no? >> i will find out exactly what testing they're doing. >> reporter: some democrats suggested while the rollout has been rough, the law is helping. >> the affordable care act is working. it has been improving the health security of millions of americans for the past three years. >> reporter: one female lawmaker mocked an obama care provision that would include maternity coverage for men. >> to the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby? >> you know, ladies, time has expired. >> reporter: and another said obama care is taking away personal choice. >> some people like to drive a ford, not a ferrari, and some

some that were listed, it's mitigate on those. were we mitigating for every possibility? >> what you do, look at the probability of a particular risk occurring. he prioritize, and one of the mitigation steps was to conduct weekly security testing, and report back to the ministry here on the results of that security testing. >> during that if you find that some data was misrouted? gettingrance companies information that is incorrect? >> there are cases in which insurance of an israeli data that were not incorrectly routed to them, but incorrectly formatted within the transaction. >> do you know who reads marilyn tavener on the wrist? she had to sign off on this document question mark >> -- she had to sign up on the document. is there way to be able to track what information employees can see while they are working on this? we have a lot of contractors working on this. is there way to track? gathers personally identifiable --ormation grade information. logs.re are system if you call the call center and the representative -- >> i'm talking about the back in. >> the gentleman

must assure that laws and regulation, mitigation, and response -- this must be the top priority. i look forward to hearing the testimony from today. we are doing something a little different. we will have senator paul interrupt the flow, allowing him his opening statement. we have invited members who are not members of the committee to also artistic pay. having senator landry here, who was affected by katrina in her community -- i have asked members to make sure that -- we will have your full statements in the record and then a reminder that we want to hear from any of our folks here to testify. i will do an order of appearance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to leave my comment weekly, submit my full statement to the record, and honor the delegation from the northeast that is here. the work of senator menendez angela brand was essential to this recovery effort. of course, welcome senator .rooker to the committee the former mayoral write-in the middle of the storm as it occurs -- i'm sure you can bring expertise to the senate and this committee as we struggle to build a b

i think in this environment we are dealing with the threat mitigation so we are going to mitigate the threat. vulnerability mitigation. we are not going to eliminate the vulnerability unfortunately. the one thing i have on that is another area we have agreed for example you don't drive cars when they can explode if it is unacceptable. having claims that kind of tumble frotumbled from the sky s unacceptable. having computer hardware that is immediately subject to our vulnerable to intrusion is unacceptable. actually, it's not. we have accepted that as a model. we accept that there are updates provided to our computers because they in fact are perhaps inherently subject to some vulnerability. so i only make that point to say that we are in an environment where we have all these problems and as much as the world we can simply eliminate them or give to the place we can eliminate them, i think that realistically we are going to be dealing with strategies to mitigate these problems. >> before we open up to questions i want to get a little more specific on what the private sector should be a

and try to mitigate. didn't work in this case, and hasn't worked in a lot of cases because the objective circumstances are different than the neurological evidence. evidence of planning as we ordinarily understand it by a guy, taking it to a place, pulling a trigger saying die all right. those objective things lint face a lot of neurological ens. this just tells you -- the red bar is bad for the criminal defenses. the ble

when they say they have been working to mitigate challenge. you are personally aware that some of these mitigations are taking place or saying so today. >> i have no idea what mitigation -- whether they took the recommendation. >> i was curious you were drawing conclusion. i didn't know -- that's based upon anything standing out -- >> it brings a unique set of challenges they are dealing to deal with. you can't necessarily correct right now with the environment. on it own it's enough to secure concern. >> agreed. t one of our big e challenges we're facing as an industry today that being cybersecurity. >> who is in charge of the environment? >> verizon. >> and i assume you mean owns it and control it is? how difficult is it to develop these security measures while the system is being built? >> that would not be ideal. >> do you have all the tools and capabilities now to successfully and fully monitor the system? >> i'm always striving. do you have all tools need fully monitor the system. >> we have a set of control that exceed any set of -- >>

mitigate is a verb.ans that you fix things before they become seriouslissat information is on there that the average person should be worried is getting out? what are hackers going after? >> first of all i have had more questions than answers. so based on some of the answers i heard today, i'm very alarmed. and one thing that we know, we heard today that if you accidentally type in semicolon, instead of a period, you will go to a fraudster 's website. that is known common practice of cyber criminals that causes me great concern they didn't think about that in advance. >> how do you guard against that? as somebody who is an expert in this, what should they have done differently? is it easy to protect against that? >> it absolutely is easy. you use user acceptance testing to do all the things we're doing stuff. we're on tiny screens sometimes on our mobile devices. we're in a hurry on our security. you act like a real user and you break the system. the second piece is, you bring in ethical hackers and you