full title it's the san francisco superior court kinds under the law we're kuar in little rock sequa lookingt the sequa guidelines what they say and what any appellant level published opinion say and that's the intoirt of the sequa law that we consider. this case is a trial court decision it's not considered law for sequa purposes and related on a federal case that's also a federal trial case that come out of the federal trial court a couple of years the climate case in 2011 i believe. and the district you court case was analyzing the effects of lake tahoe under the financial environmental act and the environmental impact that case concerned the but yes, sir. without getting the proper permit they were going to regulate the both yes, sir. . the 9th circuit court of appeals hadn't reviewed did federal case they found that the problem with the tahoe recreational agency they didn't provide many substantial evidence. so the court sent the case back to the tahoe recreational agency and the ruling said the agency has discretion to determine the appropriate baseline. so it's a federal case not appl

but sequa look at the environment as it exists at the time of the analysis and the abatement work had been done and the character design features had been removed. >> that's the best part. >> did you have questions. her >> i saw she represented the planning department and board for a number of years welcome ms. tang. >> can you tell me i don't have much knowledge of the preservation issues that's your area ms. tang. >> yes. i'm tina tang it's important to know the historic evaluation report was prepared we a qualified xhounltd architecture group they concluded the presence of a non-continuance district related to the era facility that this site the dupont was part of the district and within this district we are as you sit here now the list that marvin put up is a slide united states courts and the shape of the park itself, the landscaping along the perimeter of the site, however, because of sequa and the way we evaluate is condition the baselines we were only tasked to look at what's there now a building that's been stripped of the orientation of the material as a result we didn't thi

arbitrary and capricious to do that that's consistent that the lion of california cascades we need to look at. sequa requires we look at the exist conditions as they exist open the ground today and compare to what's prupd on the project. here we're heard testimony today and the planning department and the sfmta talked about those shuttles open the street we are compare that condition to the proposed project which is the forgotten o information gathering and you know short term permitting program so you compare those two things >> first of all, i had trouble finding the ethnic circuit position. >> it's not published because it was unpublished. the district opinion cannot be. one case the appellant case from 2002 addressed whether or not to consider the existing conditions as as part of the baseline conditions. you've asked me about the other two cases. the appellant said i'm sorry if i'm not getting that correct but under the sequa the the appellant is stating that's are relevant to this case that sequa was considered 0 and were silenced on the definition of whether or not there was activity to the b

sequa. we're looking at this as a defined 18 month data gathering effort that was the project that was proposed to us for environmental review any further long term effort be it a policy or a physical changes at the bus stop over and over designation or lack thereof that is proposed as a permanent measure is subject to its own environmental review we'll consider the issues that are appropriate within that environmental review context >> okay. you heard from the mta director that, in fact, there maybe new stops that are currently not being used as stops new locations does that change our analysis in any way? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the middle part of your question. >> that the 2 hundred stops they're part of the pilot may include places where there are no places for constitutes but are new stops does that change our analysis. >> mta does not have a competitive inventory of stops being used by shuttles and there's no way to on that without designating stops for used by shuttles. identifying stops and moving them around is part of the experimental management effort that's been analyzed and pro

one we're talking about a small number of projects every year in the thousands of sequa cleaners we give you're looking at 10 projects a year that have to go through - >> my thing is presently gets a bad rap. >> and that's understandable we have standard procures for how a consultant should approach one of the analysis the scans we didn't building it's a sire we couldn't make a formal decision on that but that's a scan of the neighborhood and give us additional information. most of this will be updated and a road applicant will be outlined in that bullet you'll have a chance to respond to the scope as we've laid it out. as you notice through the recommendations the majority of the sequa recommendations, you know, are general response would be we agree and these procedures need to be part of the preservation bullet 16 which is a priority for us to update not only to provide clarity for our staff but for the public >> i have a followup question to this item. i think this condition suggests there's more clarity about what the project sponsors should do make sense. the flipdz this isn't only about protecti

thank you >> well commissioners if you looked at the brief it's prominently dealing with sequa issues. i'm in concurrence with the planning department with the charter changes that pretty much going to a different avenue and not to this commission. i'm not sure there are overlaps whether in the monitoring or litigation issues or other elements that relates in some form or manner however slight to the building permit, however, the issues that were brought up by the public comment speakers was quite different than the brief in terms of the comment related to the neighborhood character and the context of the building. it's in my opinion a lot of the issues were discussed in the project authorization review we did last time we discussed at length last time it was not just the decision on the mitigation measures we discussed the variance that were required because it's a corner building and hue that then establishes the mapping of the building to wrap around the corner and therefore the rear yard go entrance and the light in there for the windows off the court yard requires some of the var

>> it would be if we looked at the possible effects even for the smallest project that is submited for the at the level of service impacts so it's role is due to exactly what sequa says when is the circumstances surrounding where the project is happening. >> the appellant stated that for the pilots i'd mentioned often 6th street two blocks from howard and the bicycle lane motive have been approved do you agree with that. >> we didn't elevate it but i don't know if it would have quality for the class exemptions. >> so they did quality for the class of exemption. >> is there any case law that is grand as a class 6 exemption. >> deputy city attorney yesterday there was no case law i checked this morning to see if something new had come down. >> the baseline so that's come up several times. i am going to ask about the by an implicit it's come up so the sfmta is moving forward with the pilot to gather information that understands the scope of the project so the 18 most allowing us to collect date it's not going to impact our by an because we don't believe it will impact the current environmental companies how do we know what those are what's united states baseline ho

looked at more carefully. the budget and legislation took the time to consider budgets that go beyond the environmental quality actor sequa and the report concludes we have a responsibility to review these suggestions. i think on page 35 of the report, one of the recommendations and it may not be one that's pursued, but it could be is that san francisco board of supervisors submit to the voters a ballot measure to propose a special tax on shuttle bus to raise funds to improve public transportation services to road and fund muni for youth after fiscal year 15-16. i like recommendation like those. also the report documented problems with the mta's pilot program. one part from the report and i'll quote from it, just because the shuttle provides transit benefits, that doesn't mean we shouldn't mitigate their harm. i'm calling for this hearing for more review and discuss these recommendations and the findings of the report. we're looking for ways to improve the pilot program and programs that the city may create. we want to hold private companies especially tech and bio tech companies accountable to do their part in environmen

number of them i don't want to look at the clear impacts but the air quality and publication and traffic gangs that clearly need meet the low they recalled is this is not from sequa. i was on the board of supervisors when the planning department issued a cat ignorantly comments on the bikes plan that was appealed i said in this matter it was not exempt if we were sued we'd lose. i salute all of you for sitting through another sequa hearing while some of you don't like the law the facts are contrary it's not exempt from sequa you should grant the appeal. thank you very much thank you. next speaker. >> hi, i work to for the public library and teach in the city hall and in noah valley i've been told those people have trouble parking because people driving into the neighborhood to park to take the busses. but i learned a lot from this meeting and i hope people on both sides of this issue have as well. i felt extremely uncomfortable this creates two different groups. we're all people and techies are here i love the things they make but it the upon the government to enforce the laws and this dies is unfair to you'll have us i urge you to support of the eirs thank you >

number not ton its own look at whether this project has a historic correction you said it wasn't until the appeal was filed would that have not occurred naturally. >> we rely on the sequa process all of our projects have to go through sequa. >> but didn't this when you get a permit for this didn't it get planning review. >> absolutely. planning requires a historical evaluation for any historic preservation over 50 years. even the shaky had >> actually yes you're right the planning department did review it. and they gave us purview to review the project lies with the planning department >> no, i understand that, however, the hr e wasn't done until after the permit was issued. >> no, no, no there was additional information brought forgot by the appellant that required additional sort of analysis that was requested by the planning department so it wasn't until after the planning department looked at more into it they requested the hr e when we went through the planning process they didn't require that. >> so there was a cat addiction in place we issued. that's the subsequent of events >> i have one more question that plan shows the width of this building but your new modu

while 9 public is just looking at our process in terms of the time is takes behind the scenes this is a context process to review, you know, a project for various components under sequa we're just trying to make that happen as efficiently as possible so putting less burden on property owners and more on the staff because of the amount of information we've we have 0 be able to compartment lists so get answers for the resources >> i first wanted to comment on the prior discussion about the secretary of standards for the safe harbor i'm not an attorney but i'm occurring what level of environmental review was required we're not common to the secretary of interior standards but not seeing a significant impact in sequa do they have to do the r i r. >> for other reasons. >> can you come up. >> if it's not if there are no significant impacts under sequa and clearly no significant impacts under sequa there's no requirement to do an eir and they wouldn't have had to do an eir. >> thank you, ms. jones. >> i wanted to directing your attention to some of the other sections in sequa. specifically the recommendation this or that is the collaborative process where a project sponsor

to do look at golden gate and do signal timing or lane changes and combine them with data driven engineering solutions so i think those are questions for you to consider and work on changes to sequa in the coming year or two with the planning department and motivating mta and the issues around complete streets and developing complete streets to help project coordination >> thank you, ms. snider for your suggestions seeing no more public comment it's closess. this is a list of pilot designs it will be in discussion i certainly appreciated ms. snider's suggestions how far what we push the programs the corridors we've identified are the right ones but can we push the envelope maybe we can have meetings now until june. one the process and the second piece is funding and if there's a need for funding we should understand what it costs it will save us money and lives to prevent the accidents we saw today. i know we have another board of supervisors committee meeting that will be starting shortly so i'll save the rest of my questions for another time but again, it's great to have the discussion over the next of you months call item 5 >> item 5 education and public awareness this is an i