the inquiry could basically affect your conclusions in terms of ceqa findings. the second question was of a more general information request and that, i think, was of a much more ambiguous -- as i phrased it, to some people's chagrin, question. anything that has a potential link back to a ceqa conclusion, i think, is totally in order. obviously their's lots of information that is included for better or worse in the eir that is not strictly in the ceqa conclusion realm. and to the extent these questions are raised in eir hearings, we try to respond to the extent factual information is brought to our attention, that we conclude was inaccurate. we correct it but also be clear we are correcting it not because it changes the conclusion, but just to have as complete information as we can. i think the area that i spoke to this the memo, in terms of alternatives, is a little -- i am not sure that i have expressed myself as well as i might have. i guess what i wanted to make sure was alternatives under ceqa are defined strictly in terms of speaking, addressing, and ident

i guess what i wanted to make sure was alternatives under ceqa are defined strictly in terms of speaking, addressing, and identifying the significant impact. and the only significant impact was structured as they were. however, what i attempted to articulate and at least feel is personally appropriate, even if there is an alternative that is not strictly speaking inspired by a significant impact and that alternative were -- needed to be investigated in order to move forward with a version of the project that the commission felt was not encompassed in the alternatives, including the project in the eir, to me, that would be appropriate to add independent of the significance issue, just so you have ceqa clearance for whatever it is before you. what i was trying to emphasize in the memo is that particularly as you move into that realm, and not strictly in this is an area of potential impact that we have questions, i hi it becomes very important that you articulate so we can know how to respond and so that the record is clear as to what the basis is for asking for an additional alternative is

the second scenario is we do this investigation and we don't change our ceqa conclusions, there is no prescriptive direction as to how that would be distributed. i suggest we basically would do what we do with publication of the c & r documents, we would do the 10 to 14 days so there's a reasonable opportunity to review the materials. rather than being without an opportunity to digest. since the hearing, we have tried to look into some of the specific substantive questions, commissioner sugaya committed two of the letters that were read into the letter as articulation of the concerns he was addressing. susan brand holly distributed a letter yesterday which you received, which commented not too favorably on my interpretation of things, and her own interpretations of the proceedings two weeks ago, those are the only formal communications we have had since two week ago and there has been dialogue within the department as to how we would respond. clarifications on what i didn't communicate well either in the memo or here, or, you know, if we want to get into further clarifications as to t

eir, to me, that would be appropriate to add independent of the significance issue, just so you have ceqa clearance for whatever it is before you. what i was trying to emphasize in the memo is that particularly as you move into that realm, and not strictly in this is an area of potential impact that we have questions, i hi it becomes very important that you articulate so we can know how to respond and so that the record is clear as to what the basis is for asking for an additional alternative is. so, for example, if the basis is, we think the impacts were greater in this area, or even if not greater, we feel there should be some version of the project that we want to actively consider, that's not within the range covered in the e.i.r., i think it's important that that be articulated, so we know what to do and the record don't look like it's an arbitrary request. the third area that i understood to be a question was once we come back with these materials, how are they distributed and circulated. and i -- my understanding of that is that obviously if we do this investigation and we find the

the ceqa process and the proposed project. the informal review process followed by the planning department to the proposed project has been procedurally correct and substantially adequate. besides individual responses to commons, the eir document includes changes to the draft eir. the changes is to clarify information or make minor changes and corrections to the eir document. some of those changes were due to changes in the project, others were in response to comments received on the draft eir. other clarifications to the eir document resulted in changes and findings to the conclusion of the draft eir. the draft eir certification before the planning commission, certification is not an action to approve the project. it is just a decision the eir has been completed in compliance with ceqa and is adequate, objective, and accurate. if the planning commission certifies the eir, they can proceed with considering approval of the proposed project. asked to adopt mitigation measures and a recording program as part of the ceqa findings

sponsor's attorney, and it was insinuated that we were acting outside of our given role as it relates to ceqa. we were put in a defensive 4 we were or were not and are given a role. i think the attorney of the project sponsor came up here and was out here five, 10 minutes challenging the commission's role, as i remember it. commissioner moore: i recall that the city attorney stated that the commission had found the eir inadequate and basically restated our decision. what went beyond this was the banter, giving each other more breathing room. as far as i am concerned, i did not see that for me to put into question adding a couple of pages to the existing eir and everything would be fine. just like commissioner sugaya, it was almost re-scoping. there were substantial issues already missing from this eir, brought up clearly and concisely in the original draft comments when we first read the draft eir. but the department or whoever chose to completely ignore that. the shortcomings were only restated. there are almost identical to what was missing in the draft eir. i felt completely safe to not ag

the line has to be decided, but maybe that is something that has to come out of whatever the state ceqa law dictates. am i think the issue is whether the alternative range -- >> i think the issue is whether the alternative range, at this hearing or another, even if there is not act -- ceqa impact, but the range is not broad enough, my opinion is that it is appropriate to raise. it is obviously easiest to address that the earlier that it comes. it is much harder to address that particular answer because it makes the timing of it awkward. if point, he cannot act affirmatively. commissioner antonini: thank you. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: for me, it is fairly clear. it does not seem unambiguous to me. we took action to unite certification. that could have stood by itself. i don't know what happens then. the project sponsor goes back in redesigns the project, does the whole eir all over, whatever happens. but then we took action to continue it. the reason i thought we were continuing it was for nea to evaluate all the kinds of things that people testified or

soon as possible we need to have a public hearing that we have been planning for over a year about ceqa and the department's approach to it, and i guess we also have to include now what authority the commission has or does not have as relates to this issue, since we were challenged so clearly by the project sponsor's attorney, i felt, last hearing. >> i think for whatever reason -- president miguel: we were told -- vice president olague: we were told -- president miguel: i am not interested in a challenge from a member of the public. with the city attorney comment? >> it is really the secretary of the commission who is charged with reviewing the minutes and the tape to determine what action the commission took. here is my understanding of what happened two weeks ago is that the commission declined to certify the eir, provided direction to staff on what the inadequacies were of the eir. no determination was made at that hearing of whether or not recirculation would be required. the project approvals were continued to january 27, along with the certification, with i think the expectation

we are focusing now on the ceqa question. it is a procedural document to provide you with information about environmental impacts secant decisions about particular applications. the intent is to educate you. in this case, the department has determined this site qualifies for an exemption. as you know, the site was built in 1960. it was billed as a marker with hub for pacific bell. it was seen as the most environmentally sensitive way to transmit large amounts of data, as opposed to building telephone lines over telephone poles or underground. in 2009, the entire permit was reviewed. 71 antennas were approved, 14-in tennis with a categorical exemption. there were three categorical exemptions it could fall under. category one allows up to 10,000 sq. ft. buildings or 2500 sq. ft. homes under a categorical exemption. we are talking about switching out five antennas. you can imagine it does not make sense that the entire project, all 50 feet and all 71 antennas somehow require an environmental impact report to switch out. you have

, ceqa looks at a lot of things. the reason we have that is that we do not look at one or two things. so i do not have to teach you all, you know, but that should not be given just as a general manner, and none of you as the questions that are pertinent. no, it is true we got low bids, but with low bids come inferior jobs may bema it -- ybe, -- maybe, but if our portion of this is $2.40 billion, how many good jobs are given to san franciscans? thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: any further comments on this item? seeing none, the public, and -- ok. walter? >> on the crystal springs pipeline. ♪ on the crystal springs pipeline i hope you fix that -- that line you are going to make it shine you just keep on working on that item and make it really fine da da da da, item four and it is time you tell me all that you find on item four, that damn pipeline, and made it really fine -- and make it really fine you keep pushing it away it is time ♪ supervisor maxwell: anybody else? you do not have to sing. seeing none, p

ceqa needs to happen first. in 1993, the advisory board had recommended approval of the landmark designation of this church. there is a designation report that was done at that time, and for some reason, that designation did not go through to the board of supervisors. it had been on the radar as being eligible has an individual landmark. we had been working with dbi to make sure that there was no other work going on without them coming to us first. we also contacted the academy to try to set up some meetings that we can try to resolve this issue. i do not know if dbi is here. >> just one question. could you explain why it was on its way to being landmark but something happened? can you talk about what that was? >>

ceqa needs to happen first. in 1993, the advisory board had recommended approval of the landmark designation of this church. there is a designation report that was done at that time, and for some reason, that designation did not go through to the board of supervisors. it had been on the radar as being eligible has an individual landmark. we had been working with dbi

ceqa needs to happen first. in 1993, the advisory board had recommended approval of the landmark designation of this church. there is a designation report that was done at that time, and for some reason, that designation did not go through to the board of supervisors. it had been on the radar as being eligible has an individual landmark. we had been working with dbi to make sure that there was no other work going on without them coming to us first. we also contacted the academy to try to set up some meetings that we can try to resolve this issue. i do not know if

ceqa needs to happen first. in 1993, the advisory board had recommended approval of the landmark designation of this church. there is a designation report that was done at that time, and for some reason, that designation did not go through to the board of supervisors. it had been on the radar as being eligible has an individual landmark. we had been working with dbi to make sure that there was no make sure that there was no other work going on without them

changes that would have been subject ceqa under -- under supervisor maxwell: ceqa -- under ceqa. they are only effective if enforced. we applaud supervisor mirkarimi for his leadership and for his longstanding efforts to safeguard this remarkable community resources. we strongly support a motion to determine the nature and extent , and prescribe the appropriate remedy. >> i am proud of you, supervisor mirkarimi 4 upholding the interests of your district. it sounds to me as if it is -- the call to account here. it is sad it has gone so far before you took up the cause. i hope you'll make a firm statement showing the you have some or the same interests as supervisor mirkarimi. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> i live in the neighborhood, not real close, but within maybe 10 boxer so. i am really horrified by what i have learned about this. our understanding is that the community had an agreement, and that they thought the building was going to be preserved with historical artifacts intact. i'd pull this out of the file here, but you probably covered it alread

context and outside of it, not that the commission directed anything outside of the ceqa context, but there are these two separate contacts and two approvals with decertification of the art and the product approval. -- with the certification of the project and the product approval. that is how i read that memo. president miguel: thank you. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: just to follow-up on stacy's comments, my interpretation is whenever this comes back, whether a january 27 or thereafter, what we were looking for i think was to have what you might call a report. that revised eir, whatever term you want to use for it, what address all of the issues that were raised at the public hearing, including the suggestions for certain alternatives which related to the existing power -- with the existing tower. that would not be in the form of some memorandum or something that says, oh, yeah, this is such and such, but it would be what i thought would be the context of the environmental document and the way the environmental documents are set forth. i extremely concerned about. so you

it does not address the ceqa process at all in the legislation. the appeals process section 342.6 has an appeal either to the board of supervisors if the board of supervisors has authority over the entitlement, or if the board of supervisors does not have authority, it would go to the board of appeals. >> "authority over entitlement" means potential use permit needs to be approved? >> i think the entitlement refers to the actual approval, like a conditional use permit legislation. the ceqa process is a separate process not directly addressed in this legislation. >> to appeal something with conditional use, there is one standard to appeal the environmental determination. what is the standard to appeal this consistency determination? four signatures? one signature? how do you get it to board? >> it is within 30 days of the issuance or denial of the consistency. any person may file an appeal. it may be one person. >> it mirrors the ceqa appeal route instead of the conditional use route, which means a certain percentage of the people within a radius,

we do not want a neighbor to use a ceqa appeal in a petty fashion. we do not want a developer to get approval on a small component and use that approval to sell through much larger components that will have greater impact later arm. it does not seem to be any provision to make sure that mitigations are understandable and enforceable. there seem to be short cuts. effective legislation would set up a clear system that indicates what kind of projects and what kinds of project sites have a general basis for ceqa appeals and environmental impact reports. there could be education workshops required for developers and the project -- and the public. it would require in that information the specifics on plans. instead, this legislation titans various windows to 14 days and 20 days, which does nothing to make this more understandable and does a lot to stop ceqa from working. it is about protecting the environment, not just developers versus communities. all should be considered. please reject this legislation. chairperson maxwell: these think if we have more p

i think one of the purposes of ceqa is as a public disclosure document. there are issues that have been raised in my mind, raised in people who testified. therefore, i think the staff is perfectly equipped to go ahead and provide the answers to those questions. that is the reason why i did not certify the eir. president miguel: finish up. commissioner sugaya, what i am hearing from you is you want the staff to answer the questions you have raised in whatever time they feel they can do it in. is that what you're saying? commissioner sugaya: i do not know procedurally how they're going to approach it, but there are issues on the floor. i would also like to ask whether or not the historic preservation commission has any issues that they would like to direct staff at this time. or you can direct them to me, since it is our hearing, and i can ask them if there is anything that would like to have me enter into the record. president miguel: if i can ask a question of the city attorney, i am sorry. i am having a problem knowing how or who to recognize on this. at

we think the ceqa issue is a red herring. we encourage you not to require an eir, to allow the categorical exemption to stand, and to go on to the second part of this permit. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to the real party of interest? seeing non-, let me ask for individuals who wish to speak -- seeing none, let me ask for individuals who wish to speak to step up to the microphone. >> board members, i am in recent residents. i moved to san francisco recently. i think you all for your time today. -- thank you all for your time today. we recently, over the last four to six weeks, through supervisor campos's office as well as clear wire and the neighbors in the area -- i apologize. can you hear me? through supervisor campos and clearwater, we repeated some of the issues that have been brought up and address here today. one of the things we have done very recently is created a site maintenance compliance relation plan to enforce the issues we talked about here today. the issues were the fencing, which we have already

we wanted to ensure that the capital projects comply with all environmental laws such as ceqa and including the resources agencies. they are the u.s. army corps of engineers, the u.s. fish and wildlife service, the national marine fisheries service, the california department of fish and game, and the quality control board. the way that we accomplish this mission is by following the environmental and narrative of the resources agency. -- imperative of the resource agency. avoid environmental impact to the extent possible. menem bias, and if you can't -- if you can't avoid, that buys, and if you can't minimize, mitigate. do it to the maximum extent possible in the planning process. the other way that we avoid impact is through the environmental construction compliance project. if we can't avoid, we minimize impact through the ceqa process so that mitigation measures recommended through ceq aa and the permits, it mitigates impact. for wsip, we have come up with an innovative idea to add benefits and accomplish beneficial environmental planning. we are adding benefits to the habitat restoration

if we can't avoid, we minimize impact through the ceqa process so that mitigation measures recommended through ceq aa and the permits, it mitigates impact. for wsip, we have come up with an innovative idea to add benefits and accomplish beneficial environmental planning. we are adding benefits to the habitat restoration. it is a way of consolidating so that instead of being scattered, they are in combined ecological areas that really provide greater benefits. today, we would like to concentrate on the construction compliance program and by regional -- sorry. regional habitat restoration. we will come back to you another time to present the impact avoidance measures and how we accomplished that process. the environmental construction management program -- ok. the environmental construction management program was prepared and is managed by our environmental construction management manager. she has been doing this for 20 years, many utilities programs for both water, electrical, and natural gas programs. we brought her in in june of 2008. we're very proud of it as it is unique for the cit

ceqa needs to happen first. in 1993, the advisory board had recommended approval of the landmark designation of this church. there is a designation report that was done at that time, and for some reason, that designation did not go through to the board of supervisors. it had been on the radar as being eligible has an individual landmark. we had been working with dbi to make sure that there was no other work going on without them coming to us first. we also contacted the academy to try to set up some meetings that we can try to resolve this issue. i do not know if dbi is here. >> just one question. could you explain why it was on its way to being landmark but something happened? can you talk about what that was? >> unfortunately, i can't. i need to pull the files from 1993 to see if it made it here. at that time, it was owned by the archdiocese. if they had objected to the designation, it could have just failed when it went to the planning commission. i don't have specific answers. >> there is no other reason bes

the commission also adopted the ceqa findings and approved the project. there was a requirement that all appropriated funds be put on controllers reserve, subject to the puc and board of supervisors' approval as concerns indebtedness. it is also the construction funds also be put on reserves with the committee, and since the harriett regionhar -- since the harry tracy is over $100 million, that would apply. we originally asked for 290, but the real number is $290 million. -- $298 million. this project is highlighted in the red circle. the plant is located in inner proximity to interstate 280 in san mateo county. the objectives of the project are to support our overall regional water system with respect to seismic response, reliability, water quality, and water supply. one of the specific objectives of the project is to increase the treatment plant capacity, sustainable capacity, that is, to 160 million gallons per day, and it should be noted that we need to be able to achieve that capacity within 24 hours of a major seismic event along the san andreas fau

department has therefore fully complied with the provisions of california environmental quality act, ceqa guidelines, to communicate the eir process and potential impact to the public and decision makers. overall, the environmental review process followed for the proposed project has been procedurally correct and substantively adequate. despite individual responses to comments, the cnr document also includes text changes to the eir. they make minor changes and corrections. some text changes were due to the project, while others were in response to comments received. none of the refinements or corrections in the document result in a change to the findings or conclusions of the draft eir. the draft eir together with the cnr document are before you for certification today. staff are not being asked to consider the merits of the project, as this is not relevant to the adequacy of the eir. project approval is on the agenda for today's meeting following certification. this discusses the impact to the project that would or would not result in significant environmental impact, or would be reduced