findings and mmrp, the ceqa findings, which includes the rational for adopting the eir's alternatives and the mmrp lists all of the proposed mitigation and improvement measures broken out in those to be implemented by the city and those to be implemented by project sponsors. the third item for you today is adoption of the amendments to the affiliated plan and general findings. your general plan packet includes the following findings. first, your packet report, the adoption resolution, a draft ordinance, which as initiated by the planning commission on march 21,2018, including the following, the central soma plan. additionally it includes amendments to the east and western soma area plans and other elements of the general plan to recognize the creation of a new central soma plan. and fourth your packet contains a summary of what has changed since the planning commission adopted the ordinance earlier this year. as we discussed at the march 22nd hearing, this changes the result of the input received from the commission and from organized labor. and in in a couple of minutes i'll share wi

ceqa would still apply in all of the projects that we're talking about here. maybe at some point we could -- if it actually qualifies, we can get an analysis on that as well as 827 -- 828. >> actually, we have a little bit more information on that. >> thank you. kay conor, planning department staff. so when you're looking at the ballot measure, in addition to 835, what those two bills are prescribing is for ministerial approval, so it's ministerial versus ceqa. sb 35, for instance, does not require the ceqa process for the planning review. so there is that distinction. it would, perhaps, be an overlay, but both sb 35 as well as the ballot initiative do require that you meet all of the objective standards, and both 315 and the proposed 315.1 would allow for additional exceptions to be granted on an administrative basis. there's a little bit of a distinction there. >> commissioner richards: and 30's appealable, but when people want to own hotels. there is something here on feasibility if we want to get our arms wrapped around this whole issue with somebody sayin

i wanted to give you background on the ceqa process. the initial study was issued on the 25th of april, the comment period is on the 25th. the initial study identifies four categories to be studied in the environmental impact report, one of which is historic resources. the planning staff is preparing a response to the hra prepared by lsa for the initial study. the key conclusions are consistent with the staff report before you today that the property was determined eligible for the inclusion of california register under criterion 1 and 3, which are functionally equivalent to the criteria januaryion a and c. we'll be coming back to you just before the certification hearing and on march 21, we were before the arc to review the historic preservation alternatives which are currently being evaluated and completed with the project sponsor and the planning staff. >> thank you very much. so at this time we're going to take public comment. does any member of the public want to speak to this matter? if so, please come forward. you'll have three m

between 2011-2015, there was a ceqa lawsuit that was defeated. so in 2015, we decided, like the sailing center, to move forward with our plans to finish up the permitting and the financing. in 2015 at the end of the year, i received a phone call -- and by the way, during 2006 and 2011, the 400-slip marina, which was 2,200 linear feet long, now it's 880, so you can see we shrunk 1,300 feet. in 2006 and 2011, nobody in this audience opposed the marina, including the sailing center. and they were well aware what we were doing. we were coordinating with them. to this day, we support all the activities of the sailing center, of their youth programming. 2015, i received a phone call through bob beck at the sailing center, wanted to meet with us. we immediately decided to meet with them. we spent most of 2016 and a little bit of 2017 in conversation with the sailing center, members of the community, hunter cuttings participated in those conversations. board of supervisors offices convened several of those meetings, yes, we went from 400 to 380 to 360 to

and then see ceqa -- ceqa review. we are happy about the piece we talked to talk to maybe for a moment was on development projects that had already had their entitlements and already received entitlements. we were going to take more clarification as it pertained to parking and off street parking and loading. was that the intent of what you were all trying to convey? >> i was here for the second item and i can't recall the specifics. i believe it was related to parks and what constitutes an approved development project. >> supervisor safai: okay. the way it reads now and the language that is in the legislation, it says a project that has already received land use entitlements and when those entitlements and we called out planning commission and planning department and we might want to clarify that to say a project subject to the review by the board of supervisors or appeals that has received land use entitlements only when it is pursuant to article 1.5. we can give you the language and review it. we can make that -- th

this is provided to the planning department for the ceqa document. it's not an approval or disapproval or any action. it's transmitting this report to the planning department for the ceqa process for the development. >> can i ask a question about this? because i'm, i know that peter is not here but there was a question that was raised that i'm still not clear on around sort of the water supply assessments. it's not so much it's the allocations and how those are really determined as we're seeing so much development in san francisco. i know that we have our caps that we've got to meet but, i just don't and mean we need to have further conversation around it because the assessment is different than the allocation per what you just said, as far as making an approval it feels like a big development comes along and we approve additional water allocation or assessment and then how close does that bring us to our cap and just to get a better understanding of that question? >> yeah, in the attachment to the agenda item itself, there is a memorandum we provide

to basically authorize potentially certain amounts of new development are required to go through a ceqa analysis specifically for that piece of legislation, and we've had multiple pieces of legislation in adu's. it's been a project that's evolved over time. i think there's four, five, maybe six pieces of legislation that have gone forward and received the adequate ceqa clearance. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. inspector duffy. >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. i don't want to go over the details on the permits. i think you've heard enough on that. so far, normally, i read those, but just some of the concerns on the appellant, on the -- on the lady on the first appellant was the -- it was some of the items that were brought up were all reasonable. i thought the flashing detail notification service were all good. and then, i heard the permit holder respond that they were going to take care of it, which was good news from a dbi point of view, so i'm happy enough with that. i didn't hear any other public building code issues brought up, and as i said, the permits appear t

seems to me like this could be a ceqa issue, and so i don't know exactly how this was decided, if thisst a policy call, if this is actually something that's within the board's jurisdiction or if the director can simply change the crossing speed with whatever impacts that has and whether this constitutes a project for ceqa. i would love to get an answer from staff on that. and then the last item, since last time the director unveiled the new logo, which i expressed displeasure about during the first two weeks under the new logo, by my count, there was a major technology glitch in the first week, which resulted in systems being down for a significant part of that thursday involving employees, affecting passengers and a lot of people. there was the rail issue that was in the press, which was just discussed. and there was a minor earthquake that resulted in having to check tracks for safety purposes. in my view, not a good first two weeks under the new logo. thanks. >> thank you. mr. mcguire, can someone reach out regarding the pedestrian count down timing? thank you very much. next speake

so there was no fcc compliance done at the ceqa level. verizon in their brief misstates that the fcc requirement only look at cumulative impacts when facilities are colocated. that's not true. the plain language of bulletin 65 on page 233 says when performing an evaluation, all significant contributors to the ambient environment should be considered. that means all facilities. no matter where they are. 100 feet away, 150 feet away, 750 feet away. in fact, on may 9th, the attorney for verizon testified that the range of the 120 watt facilities are in fact 750 feet. so ultimately, we don't know whether this facility complies with the cumulative impacts of the fcc guidelines because facilities more than 150 feet away weren't included in the study. he with just don't know if this complies with the fcc guidelines. i also want to point out that the fcc at page 53 also requires an analysis of continuous exposure over a long period of time. it's especially important to do that to analyze exposure over a lifetime for people living in nearby apartm

regarding the type of proposed construction that triggers application of the act into ceqa determination. >> president breed: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame president, colleagues, when this item was before the board two weeks ago, following a unanimous approval by the inspection commission and favorable recommendation from the land use committee we were grappling with concerns raised to the scope of applicability and concerns that this might increase the workload of the department of building inspection such that it would be difficult to comply with it. as a baseline principle, my endeavor with the revisions i'm going to propose, that development projects proposed for sites on seismic or landfill hazard zones receive the necessary level of review to ensure that -- really not if, it's when a catastrophic earthquake hits san francisco, our structures withstand that disaster. and i'm pleased that over the last two weeks, my staff, i particularly want to acknowledge lee and dbi staff have arrived at a compromise which vests in the department discretion send the pr

so i think 10.4, the ceqa review picks it up. >> okay. thank you. >> on 10.5, i would like to make some further consultation with the planning department. that's kind of an unusual item and we just want to confirm that that's the appropriate ceqa determination. >> thank you. we will take up 10.4 again and we'll still hold on 10.5 and should you get it resolved, we can act on that one. thank you very much for doing that. 10.4, do i have a motion to approve? >> move to approve. >> a second. >> all in favor. any opposed? hearing none, 10.4 is approved. now item 12. >> good afternoon, directors. i lead the innovation team in the sustainable streets division. about -- last summer, we brought to you 10 guiding principles for emerging mobility services and technologies. since that time, we've been partnering with the san francisco county transportation authority staff so do an assessment of how different emerging mobility services are living up to those principles. we've reached a milestone where a draft report has been released and with this i

we're hearing ceqa and environmental concerns. we'd like to see some studies on why is this program operating? what does it mean for two workers to be racing a route to pick up a scooter that only one of them gets that night. we'd like to see what social impacts, so we don't mirror some of the problems that we had with our more recent programs. we'd like to see this low income program rolled out, and more importantly we'd like to see it culturally competently rolled out and more in conjunction with each of our neighborhoods. we'd also like to see high enough rate of fees associated with it that we're recapturing a true equity to put back into the program. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> sir. welcome. >> good afternoon, directors. thank you very much for being here today and looking over this issue. i just wanted to take a quick few of my minutes to go ahead and readdress what was mentioned by mr. blue. i think it's very important that we think about the precedent that we're setting here, and that we should not an

first and foremost, i'd like just to make a motion to accept the ceqa amendments to items 1 and 3. colleagues if we can take that without objection or if there's a second on that motion. seconded by supervisor stefani, and we'll take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next item -- next action, i'd like to duplicate item 3, duplicate that file, and i'd like to amend the duplicated file to remove some language, okay? i'm going to read the language into the record. "to remain everything but the ballot question." and then the next thing i'd like to do is continue the duplicated item to the call of the chair. and then, my next motion is to approve items 1 through 3 as amended with a positive recommendation to the full board. all right. colleagues, so is there a second to -- second by supervisor fewer, and we can take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. madam clerk, did you get all of that? >> clerk: yes. >> supervisor cohen: is there any further business before this body? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> supervisor

by 2015, litigation challenging the ceqa analysis had been forwarded. the proposed developer of the marina began planning for the design, permitting and construction. the first step in the process was to sit down with treasure island sailing center and look at plans necessitated by the navy's work and the reconstruction of the causeway from the island to yerba buena. between 2015 and 2017, treasure island enterprises met to refine the proposed layout including discussions facilitated by the board of supervisors and their staff. the discussions resulted in the compromised layout of a marina of 313 slips. the long-term leases approved by the board of supervisors have relied upon this compromised configuration. we've brought them to the board of supervisors so both programs can proceed with financing and permit promises through the bay conservation development commission and joint aquatic resources application >> president breed: good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the board of supervisors meeting for tuesday may 1st, 2018. madam clerk, please call the

characteristics of the landmark building, and therefore, it does not cause any adverse impact for ceqa. since publication of the dr analysis, the department has received four letters in opposition to the project that raise concerns relative to retaining the tree, the amount of proposed excavation and the small scale of the home. additionally, this week, the historic preservation commission scheduled the nomination for the tree landmarking on june 20th. staff has consulted with the department's preservation planners, the department of public works and sf environment and confirmed the landmarking process may move inened at that em with the processing of this building permit before you. additionally, as the tree is already identified as a significant tree, it's important to point out that it will also be subject to review by dpw subsequent to the planning department approval of the permit and the project sponsor will be required to provide a tree protection plan. the department is recommending you approve the project today as it is found there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumsta

of community investment and infrastructure to the city and county of san francisco and affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> supervisor breed: same house, same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. >> clerk: ordinance to amend the police code to require applicants for cannabis businesses to enter into a police code agreement or collective bargaining agreement. >> supervisor breed: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: it amends what we passed last year. we put in labor peace. the industry, cannabis industry, which we hope will flourish in our community, was underground until the passage of prop 64 and the implementation of our measures last fall. we put in the legislation the requirement for a labor peace agreement. but that promise remains unfulfilled unless we set a time point by which these -- these new businesses, which have come out of the underground into the daylight, who will be hiring tons of workers, but have not had the opportunity to organize here to now, unless we set a deadline by which they commit to allowing their

issues, but we don't often get to weigh in on it except to, you know, certify an exemption of a -- of a ceqa determination, which is very d dissatisfying and then often confuses our constituents on what our positions on programs are. but on stop signs and daylighting and i think meter hours, i share supervisor tang's kind of reluctantance to hear those issues, and what i would like to hear are some of the big programs that sf mta oversees. so that's just my overall feeling. i do want this to go through because i know that supervisor he is pin a-- peskin and safai have spent a lot of time working on this. i would like to see some other priorities, including our vision zero implementation work. i would not want to see that slowed down because we're talking about lives, not only fatalities, but consequences that have impacts on the -- our families and our communities. thank you, colleagues. i will support this today. i definitely think we should have a year point at which we evaluate how this has been working with this board, and i know that supervisor peskin and safai will be on the board to e

so you might request back in march at the same podium, you approved the current project with the ceqa findings, so with this contract today, you will be able to bring on the last members of the project team who will help us construct the project at the southeast plant. so thank you, and at this time i can answer any of your questions. >> thank you. commissioners, questions? >> how do we come up with the figure of $42 million? >> well, basically, we have a puc construction manager resident engineer, and obviously, you know, with the whole construction manager bureau, this is a staff augmentation. they looked at the job, and they developed -- it's basically a staffing plan and all the different expertise we need, and we looked at what we had for city resources, and what we didn't have and we needed augmented. that's how the rfp was developed and obviously the dollar amount, as well. >> okay. so it's a committee. >> well, yeah. >> what we do is we base it off of resources that we need, and then, there is a percentage that you should be within for construction management, but since we're

we have ceqa's category exempt for the project. we receive water port approval for the land cap cover design. [inaudible] >> -- for the project. report of commission's authorization, we anticipate the project schedule as follow: we're going to award the contract in this amount may 2018. start construction, june 2018. substantial completion, november and toward get the project completed construction by the end of the year. port staff recommends port commission authorize to award the position contract pier 94 backlands construction project to hoseley corporation in an amount not to exceed 7,665,903, and authorize the city to accept the work when it is completed. so i have someone here from the office to continue to tell you about the project goals. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president brandon, director forbes. i am the assigned contractor compliance officer for this project, and i am going to provide a breakdown for you on the mvewbobe availability of lbe sub contractors that were available to do this type of work. as you can