fws would participate, though, in the mitigation? [speaker not understood] the portion referred to by the appellant. >> the sort of standard process as i understand. so, we -- we have been working in consultation with the federal and state agencies. so, we typically provide them with opportunities to comment with any concerns. so, that's the reason why we did that. >> okay. so, if as i'm reading it here, it says ufwf must review and approve. this is in the c-e-q-a document for the sharp park [speaker not understood] project. >> which item are you referring to? if you don't mind. >> i'm actually referring to the e-mail that mr. plater had distributed to the board. so, i don't have the page number in front of me. i apologize. i can try to look for it. >> so, i believe the question is whether or not the fish and wildlife is required to review and approval -- approve this mitigation measure. i believe the answer is no. the mitigation measure requires us to provide information to the u.s. fish and wildlife, however, their review is not re

they heard about the mitigation proposals for 2a ~, but they had not heard about the mitigation proposals for 2b. and they went on to say that even if we had heard about them, because these are requirements that are derived from c-e-q-a, a state law, they are so constrained implementing their own federal acts, that they would not be -- it won be possible for them to implement them. they don't have the staff or the funding to help local municipalities to comply with nonfederal laws like c-e-q-a. we were shocked to hear this and, so, i followed up with an e-mail to kay goody, assistant field supervisor for the endangered species program for the fish and wildlife service. i attached the provision of mitigation measure 2b to that e-mail. i highlighted the relevant parks that include duties on fish and wildlife services. i excerpted portions of it and asked if they had funding to implement these measures and she responded, no, we do not have resources identified to implement these measures at this time. and you should all have a copy of that e-mail correspondence before you. now, under c-e-q-a

, that a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. [speaker not understood] is very limited in scope as all of you know. it involves habitat enhancement and minor infrastructure improvement at sharp park [speaker not understood]. further includes components that are analyzed in and required by [speaker not understood] issued by u.s. fish and wildlife service. and includes construction of [speaker not understood] realignment of personal existing golf cart task, removal of sediment and emergent [speaker not understood] and connecting channel that links the pond to [speaker not understood]. construction and maintenance walkway, horse stable ponds, [speaker not understood] and [speaker not understood] existing retaining walled with concrete retaining wall at the exist being compound. the primary purposes for the proposed project are to restore habitat in several locations within the wetland complex for the california red leg frog and san francisco garter snake and improve safety for worker by improving access to the pump intake structures

what we can speak to is the mitigation measure itself. sfrpd is obligated to provide the various options for -- in the event the [speaker not understood] are found, sfrpd is obligated, number one, to provide that, the results of that reporting and study to u.s. fish and wildlife as would be expected in a situation where special status species are affected. sfrpd is required to submit that and fish and wildlife is to be given the opportunity to review and comment. the specific lines as approved by sfrpd would indicate -- well what that's referring to is fish and wildlife may comment on ~ which option sfrpd is proposing to use for remediation. so, if they were to indicate that there is a preferable approach, that is what sfrpd must implement. so, there's a lot of context to this mitigation measure. it is not something where this is requiring a large obligation on the part of u.s. fish and wildlife. and as i say, it would not be expected that u.s. fish and wildlife would have allocated any resources to this effort at this time. that doesn't

the fish and wildlife service would not be doing the mitigation. and i believe that their response really said was that at this time they had not allocated resources to the evaluation of the plans and other elements of the mitigation measure. that does not mean that down the road they will not have -- they will deny commenting on our plan, but we will prepare with a consultant who is an expert in this field, we will prepare a plan that meets the requirements of the mitigation measures as well as the rest of the measures that are spelled out and we would provide those to not only the federal fish and wildlife service, but to the california fish and wildlife department of fish and wildlife and other stakeholders. now, is it necessary for them to provide comment back in order for us to implement that mitigation measure? no. >> and president chiu, just since i'm getting my questions out, the number of the residents raised the issue, i don't know if there is substantial evidence to the claim, but they're saying that the construction of this project and

so, the fish and wildlife service has implemented and reviewed one other mitigation measure called mitigation measure 2a. that one has some relatively modest constraints on the rec and park department to simply survey the construction area before they start digging the area, for example, to make sure there are no individuals in the way of the excavation project before they move forward. the issue dealing with acid -- acid release into the environment is a much more complex issue. it requires extraordinary scientific expertise to understand the biochemistry of this issue, and to implement mitigation measures for it. if -- and we already know that the soil types that are out -- that create these conditions are present on the site. they are easily identifiable by their color, and by their smell. this is a sulfur based acid so, it gives that characteristic rotten egg smith when you scrape the area away. this is easily observable by anyone who goes out there. that issue has not been addressed at all in the document and it has very significant consequences, not on the listed species, but on this ra

it's called mitigation measure m bio2b, 2b. and this mitigation measure imposes several duties on a third-party. the united states fish and wildlife service to mitigate for those significant effects. they don't contradict that this is a significant concern. in fact, they actively and affirmatively mitigate for this concern. they claim their mitigation is good enough to reduce the [speaker not understood]. what it requires is for them to establish, review and approve site specific toxicity standards for the acid soul fights that are going to be released into the environment. it requires the fish and wildlife service to review and approve a remediation and monitoring plan to address those issues. and it also requires the fish and wildlife service to review and improve specific remediation measures when they select a particular mitigation option out there for these acid condition. now, the fish and wildlife service has been consulted about some aspects of this project. mitigation measure m bio-2a, 2a has been submitted to the fish

while one mitigation -- in order to be a mitigation, the trees have to exist. they have to survive the process along the way. and i'll give you the example of what went on with loyola village. we were told at an imp meeting there that the campus landscape plan will protect those large mature trees. we didn't have to worry about them. we asked that they be marked during the construction or conditional use phase. they were. but that didn't stop the fact that my wife came home one afternoon and of the eight trees that were 50 to 70 feet tall right directly behind our property, six were already down and one of them stripped. it took her the rest of the morning to get some attention from usf and some attention from the contractor. she saved one of those eight trees. that was all that was possible. now, the university accepted that it was a mistake. they accepted that they really had some culpability here. so, what did they do? they offered to plant six fast growing tree. i'll tell you those six fast growing trees have grown very fast. they're 20 feet tall now and do

a mitigated negative declaration states there will be no significant environmental impact. i disagree with this [speaker not understood] removal of re station of horse stable pond within the project description would result in significant environmental alteration of the threatened species habitat. [speaker not understood] the california red legged frog season would impact reproduction, drying leg masses, further decrease of the population. not only will this activity be environmentally damaging, but it would require regular maintenance that would be costly. there is an alternative which is why water levels high enough to dry [speaker not understood]. this alternative addresses [speaker not understood] the current proposal lackseses. i am grateful for san francisco's environmental leadership and believe we he should live up to this reputation by requiring [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >>> hello, thank you for your time. my name is ron aloe michaels and i'm a resident of south san francisco on the border of pacifica. i spend a good amount of

while one mitigation -- in order to be a mitigation, the trees have to exist. they have to survive the process along the way. and i'll give you the example of what went on with loyola village. we were told at an imp meeting

mitigated water levels and acidity have impact on two federally protected species. red legged frog and garter snake. letting the water level rise is not omaha, nebraskav feasible but much more prudent. they would save a lot of money than would otherwise spent fully. thank you. >> next speaker. >>> hello, my name is [speaker not understood] oz good. i'm a resident of san francisco. and i urge the board of supervisors to consider the full environmental i am ~ impact pumphouse project so they can consider [speaker not understood] less damaging and more fiscally responsible. thank you. >>> hello, i'm larry pettit, i'm a citizen of san francisco and proud to be so. ~ but sometimes i'm a little embarrassed. i find it ought that san francisco at this time is choosing to pump out water from the wetland, at the same time there are heroic efforts being made to preserve wetlands. certainly an e-i-r is certainly called for in this case. sadly. but -- and at a time when -- well, i mean, the california red lake frog is our most famous amphibian. it can jump well without buck shot

so, the screening that they're proposing as a mitigation will not happen. i ask you to make them provide that before you accept the imp. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please, and let me call a few more names. tanya solomon. bob lee. ruth levy. [speaker not understood]. christin chris wall. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ruth levy. i live at 160 ewing terrace and i suffered through the construction of loyola village after an earlier imp did not address our neighborhood issues. usf says they must have this housing and these housing units to be competitive in the market for students, but they intend to consult us in the process during the conditional use permit preparation that they will design to all codes required by the city, and that they've gone out of their way to build in the mitigations and to be a good neighbor. well, that may be their intention, but our actual real-life experiences with loyola village project were quite different and we have not for got en. ~ forgotten. it was bad judgment, broken promises, substantial constru

we request the commission require that the applicant include a list of such mitigations prior to and as a condition of acceptance prior to adjourning. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >>> good afternoon. my name is tom griffin. i live at 234 ewing terrace and my backyard is the hillside that this dormitory is going to be built on. what i'd like to talk to you about is my direct experience with usf's mitigations regarding loyola village. that

what is before us is the appeal of the mitigated negative declaration. there is no c-e-q-a issue here in terms of whether this should be ordered for a full environmental impact report. i think that the neglect -- excuse me, the mitigated negative declaration was correctly issued and i think that we should affirm it. and i do want to say a couple things. first, i had i guess a slightly different perspective on a question asked by supervisor campos before. there seems to be an argument that unless you do an e-i-r, you can't know whether there will be a significant impact, and that i think is actually a circular argument that could be made on every cad ex, every negative declaration issued in the city that unless you do an e-i-r, you don't know if there is a significant impact. that would trip everything potentially into an e-i-r or at least arguably. and the fact is as the planning department described, there was an initial study done and then we go from there. so, i think the c-e-q-a review was handled correctly here and i will in a moment move to affirm

a cover sheet which lists out those mitigation measures with the potential to involve recreation and park department facilities, recreation and park department staff or the general public, just to try to point your attention to the more important mitigation measures, and almost all of these are related to potential construction impacts such as noise, underground utilities, hazardous materials, there are a couple that are highlighted that have to do with operation of the project, meaning the pumping of the ground water and these have to do with water quality impact due to the ground water pumping and we have mitigation measures for those and that's due to the need to protect the ground water quality for both drinking water and irrigation use. >> the memorandum of understanding, between our departments is exhibit c of proposed resolution, and some of the key previsions are listed on the slide. the mou permits the puc to constructs the project on park department lands. it permits the puc to access those facilities in the future for operation and maintenance. it identified measures to be

six the city requested rent funding not only for the plant but for the recreational facilities mitigation. epa supported in effort and wrote a letter to the state board that said in light of the southeast expansion we believe that extensive efforts should be made and it will rest in part in the understanding that recreational facilities will be provided to mitigate impacts by placing a play field on top of the clarify fizz consequentially we occur with the state board to require the construction of such facilities. subsequential they were eligible for grant funding for the proximity of the area and the eir processes that has to be mitigated and the epa support. sometime later in 1897 six the city staff determined the cost of the recreational facilities was doubled their original estimation and the proper maintenance would be impossible because of the elevation and form of the bayview hunters point community didn't support this aspect of the project. so for the next 3 years at the city and staff and community members developed a plan that identified mitigation measures consistently of can

impact report the neighbors and residents expressed significant opposition in that area in order to mitigate and minimize the social environmental effects the city proposed concrete covers in the clarify fizz and for the recreational fields on top of the cover. in 19720th century 5 side board of supervisors said that the treatment plant should be located adjacent to the other plant to have 8 acres of facilities and the neighborhoods should be given the opportunity to add to the design of the facilities. in 497 six the city requested rent funding not only for the plant but for the recreational facilities mitigation. epa supported in effort and wrote a letter to the state board that said in light of the southeast expansion we believe that extensive efforts should be made and it will rest in part in the understanding that recreational facilities will be provided to mitigate impacts by placing a play field on top of the clarify fizz consequentially we occur with the state board to require the construction of such facilities. subsequential they were eligible for grant funding for the proximity of

>> their conversation about hazard mitigation.there was something else that they were whispering, but they weren't, maybe i didn't hear part of it. for what they were talking ab t about, no, there was no quid from quo, there were no threats and it would completely be out of carriharacter with the richa constable i know since working on sandy. again, it would have stood out. it would have been very memorable if someone was threatened over sandy. >> one more question because we initially were looking at this and we saw this and we thought to reach out to richard constable's office. he's in christie's cabinet. we got that statement which we aired and then we invited him, of course, to appear on the show. he declined and then his office told us that you were interested in appearing on the show and asked if we were interested in talking to you. we were and here you are. it does occur to me, is there a reason why richard constable's office would have referred us to you? they said you already expressed interest to them to appear on the s

mitigation is related to the sequa or planning code. steve has written an ethics thing we'll be describing later and now the gentleman is prepping for the city attorney to be transmitted about the loop as a church sacrificing we ought to be able to evade the planning code or sequa because we're a church but once you begin allowing that they go into court and sue and submit an application for a settlement maybe this will fall out in the course you have settlement that all those principles under the law whether a planning code or sequa are being accommodated because the project is so bad and horrible that we're going to give into it. how could things be worse than that >> this is what was done to the church. now i'm going to tell you that everything was deception. there was nobody with within the methodist church that knows what the lawsuits were. their theatres are occurring and how many people did you see a lawyer and a treasurer and the project developer with whom their aligned against the interests of the church. even clergy are threa

as you'll see the first item on this slide consolidating this it is well within the mitigation that have been set forth. to move on those are over all lessons we agree on the contractors outreach we've got to semiflying if i our relationships. people didn't always know who they were talking to we've got to stench out a number of things we need to do better mindful of the consideration like the propriety information but we can get there >> in terms of, you know, jurisdiction issues in terms of tracking and monitoring it seems like having an amendment between office of economic workforce development and crack monitoring and who's rule is to do what would be important to have wri8gd clearly. >> i don't disagree with that particularly on the audits and working ahead of time in 2013 we'll talk about that. and then the last part of the budget scoping the budget that remains constant was the ability of our partners and us to right size what we're doing. you know, i think ms. campbell alluded to the budgets being to $50 million before the event and we were able to switch that down into the $24 m

mitigation is related to the sequa or planning code. steve has written an ethics thing we'll be describing later and now the gentleman is prepping for the city attorney to be transmitted about the loop as a church sacrificing we ought to be able to evade the planning code or sequa because we're a church but once you begin allowing that they go into court and sue and submit

america's cup there will be more work to do but how to mitigate and permit this event on a regulatory basis. similarly the red piece of pie is the general fund that paid for the peer 29 improvements and the pedestrian in green p those are locations for future event undoubtedly therefore we won't see these costs reoccurring again so what remains is the game day operations related to public services we put together a pretty good framework based on speculator volume and you'll see insurance the green a lot of that effort had to do with insuring the delivery of the crews project i would think that piece of pie is cut in half to focus on a special event coverage policy. all this analysis leads

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 also related to the fact that we will continue to monitor and make adjustments to our service over time. it's not intended to be the service plan that carries to 2035. we also identified in some locations loading impacts wherever possible staff worked to identify loading alternatives within 250 feet of the project, but in some cases that wasn't possible. and there was also some parking impacts identified particularly in areas when we looked at the cumulative parking needs for example in the mission where there is also a lot of development planned. there were also about seven or eight intersections where because of different transit priority changes, the inters

let's not mitigate. >> i think there are most. most governments are signed up to the rhetoric at least of trying to achieve a global deal in paris in 2015 that would seem an agreement driving all of these processes. at the same time people are realizing there is quite a lot. if you would like, we are storing it up in the atmosphere. if that's the case you may as well adapt now. particularly in adapting you can get other benefits on as well. >> let's take fracking, for example. huge pressure to frac here in the uk at the time moment. >> if you read documents like the one just published you should say, right, we should end the use of fossil fuels right now. well, that's not going happen. they are an imbedded part of the way society works. developing countries, that would be india and china, have been going great. they're cheap. and they bring their people out of poverty very effectively. so there's a very tricky balance looking ahead. one of the key things here is i'm detecting a change of tone from the authors of these reports. sev

1.8% or 1.6% over the last 20 years and is -- much of that or some of that growth has been somewhat mitigated by the fact that the university has developed the campus in downtown area which is now -- has many of their graduate business students there which is a great location because it's exactly where you should be if you're studying business and also a site in the presidio and some online studying. so, the actual group of students at the hilltop campus has been probably even less than the numbers that are stated. but both of these issues revolve around two thing. the proposed housing and the parking, and there's very much related because the proposed housing will in many ways mitigate some of the parking problems because there will be 650 students who will not be driving a car to campus. they will -- in fact, they won't be allowed to have a caron campus if they are -- if they have student housing. therefore, that's going to eliminate a lot of the cars that might be there. and in term of the location of the housing facility, if you look at the executive summary, it basically only mentions th

you want to build on mitigation. and this is the other thing that may be slowing is down a little bit. i am trying to drive some decisions about not using our traditional cost benefit analysis, is looking to our path, almost like insurance models. for going to build back the waste water pump station we need to build it for the future. that may mean a different investment and perhaps more on the front end so that we don't come back and have to replace or deal with the consequences again >> and you know, i think you have heard me loud and clear in terms of understanding following the constitution and states' rights and i think you have seen what has been going on in new jersey in terms of using some of these funds for leveraged reasons other than what they are prescribed for. what kind of oversight does fema perform to make sure that funds are going where they are needed and guarantee that grantees are managing the funds effectively? >> well, the face we are in right now there is no direction by the state. that is dete

> through the chair did you mention it was in the report the fact it d h had a perfect score in mitigation. >> i mentioned it her but there was a are you surveyor from the california public health department that came here to tube the mitigation program and on the exit he reported no deficiency in the error reduction plan. this was the first medication error plan that we know of were there were no finding congratulations to san francisco general >> i think that's a significant note rewarding regarding how the fact of medication has paragraphed who've be spent time looking at units it was define at the ramming random and established by the program we wanted to acknowledge that and i'm glad the director brought this up. >> item 4 is public comment i've not received any requests. >> any public comment. >> the text is a report back from the committee. >> we had two reports today in the community of public health community the first was a gentleman with the transgender program of public health it's excited there's a new program that kicks off on april 9th and it actually will be the first, if y

we this there are unintended kwunsz i consequences but if amended we could mitigate those but we've noteen any interest on the part of supervisor chiu >> i have a question. >> all right. mr. chamberlain we have a couple of questions supervisor kim and supervisor cowen. >> so i appreciate the concerns that the council brought up as stacey said there are amend that would mitigate some of the intended consequences i'm curious. >> specifically one thing we want to see is the owner that currently, the out of respect should be in it on january 1st, 2013, that will mean it affects only current places accompanied. >> we want to see the only owner be an owner that owned the property on january 1st, 2013, or before so that would stop future developers swooup and trying to purchase single-family so they could buy is and flat it 20/20 flats and rent it is important expensively. >> thank you. >> i have a question if in your remarks you talked about speculators coming in and doing what you said whatever spectaculars do i'm curious about your thoughts. >> if there were an amendment that said only the