and here we are with a ceqa issue. but if we knock down one building, say, in a historic district with 30 buildings, will the historic district -- i'm using an analogy -- cease to retain its significance as an historic district. and i use that as the same thing here. i really wish there was a way -- i think that this cottage is special, i don't know what alternatives you've looked at in to retain it. you know, i'd love to move this project forward but also to understand what alternatives there are, and we're dealing with a ceqa issue here. project sponsor, what alternatives did you have -- i'm sorry -- project sponsor -- staff -- project sponsor, what alternatives did you have on this? did you even consider moving it around or anything to keep it? >> so we did study it and i know that the picture does make it seem like it's a quaint little cottage on the roof. it's really not. it's one facade of an interesting kind of penthouse conference room. there's a lot of material that needs to be takeen off that roof for seismic

but going backwards, not only is the ceqa issue not before this board, but there's no ceqa issue that's been shown by the appellant. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject property is located within the urban mixed use zoning district. the project began in 2014 and in august 2014, a p.p.a. or preliminary project assessment was filed with the planning department. the related entitlements and environmental review were submitted in 2015, and in 2016, the city first -- the rec-park commission held a shadow hearing on october 21, and prior to that, the planning commission held a hearing on june 16 and approved the subject project. the environmental review was issued on march 27, 2016. no appeal was timely filed after the issuance of the planning commission of the large project authorization nor was there an appeal of the authorization itself that was approved by the planning commission. i believe their hearing date was june 23, 2016 when they took those actions on the shadow and the large proj

this is how it reads in the ceqa exemption document. >> correct. and that's what we told our architect, and that is what we put in our application. that is exactly what we're planning on using it for. >> commissioner tanner: i think some of the questions are, what the definition of limited is. which hasn't been defined by planning or the city hasn't twined that for you. i am -- defined that for you. trying to figure out what that limited use -- >> certainly, it's going to be in use until 6:00, and certainly, it's not going to be used until after 6:00, so for sure, that's the case. i think the weekend situation is just a -- an odd event. we may have a tour, and we may walk people through that event. we don't hold classes on weekends, so -- and we -- actually, in conjunction with discussing with the neighbors, we had talked with the planning department will letting other groups -- about letting other groups use this. the neighbors we were in communication with were vehemently against that, and we said fine, we're not going to do that. we understood t

ceqa states it shall not be used with a significant effect due to a circumstance. san francisco has the highest level of mental health therapists in the city and 3,000 come each week for appointments. a powerful voter was sent to you january 5th by the mental health community and these show the names of the mental health therapists that have signed on to the letter. >> commissioner: so your time has concluded. thank you very much for your presentation. right now i believe if there's people that would like to speak in support of the appeals, please line up over here and you have two minutes each. line up to your right, to my left. okay. first speaker come on up. >> good afternoon. thank you very much for hearing this appeal. my name is cynthia silverstein. my family has owned the property immediately to the east of the proposed development over 40 years. since 2012, we have consistently made the same points to the planning department regarding the issues the appellant just spoke about. in addition, the masting you can see in one of the slides that alex had up is so

due to the depending appeal under ceqa for this amendment, i would like to motion to refer this matter to a later date to april 2, 2019, at 3:00 p.m. >> president yee: okay. april 2nd? >> supervisor fewer: april 2nd. >> president yee: thank you, motion is made. is there a second? seconded by supervisor safai. >> clerk: mr. president, i'll add, supervisor fewer, you are not making a 3:00 p.m. special order? >> supervisor fewer: no. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> president yee: okay. without objection, this item will be continued to the meeting of april 2nd. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: item 24 is a resolution to authorize the director of public works to execute agreements with the california department of transportation pertaining to the jefferson street improvements phase ii project for the amount of approximately $6.7 million. >> president yee: colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 25 and 26 together. >> clerk: items 25 and 26 calle

with regard to eights eight through ten, the ceqa -- items eight through ten, the ceqa appeal, i believe the planning department properly reviewed the project and that a class 31 exemption was appropriate in this case. therefore, i'd like to move to affirm the determination made by the planning department that the proposed project at 3637 and 3657 sacramento street is categorically exempt from further environmental review and deny the motion in item nine. >> president yee: okay. >> supervisor peskin: i'll second. >> president yee: so we have a motion to approve items eight, and to table nine and ten. we have a second by supervisor safai. colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? okay. items are approved. >> clerk: mr. president, items eight were approved, and items nine and ten were tabled. 11 and 13 are before the board. >> president yee: okay. >> supervisor stefani: president yee, can we rerefer itemed 11, 12, and -- items 11, 12, and 13? i have a few items that i need to review with the city attorney. >> president yee: okay. there is a motion to rerefer. do i need a second f

i take ceqa seriously. i don't see the case.i think the categorical exemption class 32 was properly issued. i don't want to step on it supervisor stefani's turf, but i think we have broad latitude if we want to revisit, or the district supervisor wants to revisit the conditions of approval. i'm not sure that there needs to be an entire floor of medical office in that neighborhood, i think there are some interesting ideas about additional housing on that site, which i would have liked to hear from the gentleman from the housing action coalition, i'm not sure why he is all excited about the medical office, but it is a free country , he can say what he wants. i don't see that there is any ceqa case here and what that is worth from your supervisor around ennis avenue. >> supervisor fewer? >> thank you very much. i am a little confused about the medical offices, because one, we heard that they don't want -- the neighbors don't want the medical offices, and yet i heard in a presentation from the project sponsor that the medical office

issued complies with the requirements of ceqa and the ceqa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code and as the review determination. and they analyze all environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, both that are project specific and a cumulative level. mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant have been identified. the planning department has considered the entire record, including all materials provided by th the appellants and public comments on the ppmd, and based on substantial evidence in the record the planning department has determined the project would have no significant effect on the environment. the planning department respectfully recommends that the planning commission adopt a motion to uphold the m.m.d. this concludes the department's presentation and we're available to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. so this is an appeal. do we now hear from the appellant? so i think that we have two different appellants so we'll have five minutes for each of you. come on up, please. >> hello, how many minutes? >> five. >> five? >>

the project is further disqualified from a ceqa exemption because of project minor modifications but a significant change of use. from a bible factory and distribution center for the former company jews for joe us o a school yard. there is and was a prejudice shall and flawed ceqa determination that allowed the issuance of this permit without the proper environmental review by the city's planning department. this is not the first time that this has happened. on the other side of the building, sits a six ton unit installed without a permit and loud with only a variance written on the back of a napkin. you would be hard-pressed to go to any city in the united states and see a 20-foot h-vac unit placed within three feet of residents windows. you can see it here in san francisco. you are looking at it right now. the apartment this photo was taken from sits vacant and had to be shown over 30 times the last time it was available. the sound and vibration of this equipment is a nuisance to the tenants that live on that side of the building. the appeal hearing was canceled by the planning dep

whether or not there's a valid ceqa determination, and that could change based upon new information.ainly, there's no ceqa determination from the early 1990's when the planning commission and the board of appeals heard those permits to today that would remain valid given all the change taz have happened in that time. >> vice president swig: and given the fact that three years have certainly passed since that motion was made and approved. we can throw that over board. >> i believe so. >> vice president swig: okay. final question. do you believe this is something with eyes wide open, if she got caught, you take the action and beg for forgiveness earlier? we have seen on a few occasions where somebody has taken action to demosomething and go oh, i'm sorry, and then beg for forgiveness and then has taken action as we deem appropriate. is this where they destroy the if a sudden and all the options that you represented and now they're begging for forgiveness on that subject? >> well, a couple things i would look at that. is it someone with a known pattern of this history of activity? we ha

according to section 2101, there's the legislative intent of the ceqa guidelines is to maintain a high quality environment, now and in the future. and taking all actions necessary to protect, rehabilitate and enhanced environment quality of the state, and to take all action necessary to provide the people of this state, which would be the people that are going to live in and around this neighborhood with enjoyment of the aesthetic natural scenic and historical environmental qualities that exist. and i'm going to contest that at least those historical qualities, and the environmental and nature scene -- natural, scenic, and environmental impacts exist. as well as to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the requirements of future generations. i believe the permit holder is going to say we're past the point of looking at this from an environmental review-ceqa standpoint, but according to section 21166, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency unle

so the six-month time frame is not a ceqa project, nine months for ceqa exemptions, 12 months for mitigated declarations and cpes and the eirs are between 18 and 22 months. so really what we're talking about is eight to 12 to what we do. >> commissioner moore: purpose is to give different types of projects appropriate time frames. the other question i have, and i'm only saying that because yesterday i did my sunshine training, and it talked about retrieval of documents and in electronic data retrieval it gets much harder for people, for example, to see the whole project file when something was revised, et cetera, et cetera, as data submitted online, date stamped, revisions that architects make to their drawings, properly noted, we have many projects that we review, but i can never tell when the latest revision was made, because architects, apparently, skip over that particular piece and we don't sometimes know if this is the latest version or something in between. particularly when it comes to sunshine ordinance going to where i got stuck yesterday, that is a very important part for the pub

we did this with hazardous soils and materials, dust control, they used to be ceqa topics, they still are, but now through a more discreet and predictable pathway. the city of oakland also did this for about 150 different standards of approval and it's been working there since 2008. i wanted to just remind everyone about the changes to the discretionary review staffing that's been underway for about a year how. we have a time-certain schedule for those. the hearing will be within ten to 12 weeks of when the d.r. is filed. additionally, they are all staffed by the residential design advisory team manager, dave winslow, who you all know well, and that, obviously, is a huge time savings and morale boost for planners. rather than having dave always on the beat. we think also, at least from what we've experienced, there's a stronger tie now between what goes on in the d.r. hearings and the way we may update and implement the residential design guidelines, so we hope that's been a benefit from your side, as well. secondly, another guideline, our ability to administratively approve all forms

interstate highway 280 with age art-focussed public pedestrian plaza to accept an offer and adopt the ceqaetermine nage determination and finding. >> commissioner: the resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk call item 14. >> clerk: a resolution to grand revocable permission to 1532 harrison owner llc to maintain the public right-of-way between harrison street and bernice street within lgbt q leather focussed roadway to accept the offer of public improvement and dedicate the improvements to public use and adopt the appropriate findings. >> commissioner: can we take this same house, same call. objection the resolution is adopt. madame clerk call item 15. >> clerk: a motion to appoint michael papas to for a term of march 1, 2021. >> commissioner: objection the motion is approved unanimously. next item. >> clerk: a motion to appoint kisai henriquez. >> commissioner: the motion is approved unanimously. call the next item. >> clerk: motion to appoint karen rhodes to the park regulation ration and open space advisory committee term ending february 1, 2021. >> commissioner: the house has c

in 2016, they completed a evaluation as part of the ceqa review process. we found the garden house workshop are not individual historic resources and are not contributing features of the landmark. as they are not associated with the development of the gas light company, northeast station of the architecture style. this was confirmed by the planning department and preservation team review form th.proposed project will demolih nonhistoric garden workshop building to construct the four-story residential building. the historic preservation commission has approved certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon. >> president hillis: we'll give you two minutes. >> i'm the architecture for this project. i'm going to let the images speak for themselves. can we just roll through them. this is the shot that shows the new building witing with 1598 oe right and landmark building on the left. notice the space between the buildings. looking back towards 1998 with our building in the middle. view from the sidewalk showing opening up the garden wall to give view into th

and ceqa documentation was completeli completed in 2016. it was not litigated at that time. it's a final document not subject to reopening, and if it was subject to reopening, it's not the board of appeals that handles ceqa appeals, so i would urge you to uphold the site permit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez, anything further? mr. duffy? commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president fung: commissioners? >> commissioner lazarus: lateness of the hour, i'll simply say i haven't heard anything that leads me to believe these permits should be revoked. >> commissioner honda: i also agree. i believe that although the brief was extremely long with a lot of information, i don't believe there's a basis or merit to overturn the permits and that four years worth of process and the shadow process is extremely extensive here in san francisco, extremely. and so without further adieu, i'd like to make a motion, deny the appeal on the basis that the permits were properly issued. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeals and up hold the

the appellants appealed the ceqa determination mainly over structure related issues such as dust, noise, and overall destruction. they appealed the c.u. over the large lot development and the nonspecial use sizes over 2500 square feet. there was quite a lot of comment in favor of the appeal while only a couple speakers came out in support of the project. supervisor stefani questions how much density is project is allowed and why medical office space is proposed on the second floor. supervisor peskin stated he did not see the ceqa impacts but was in favor of the changes, and supervisor stefani asked that the item be continued for one week. the sponsor had a list of accommodations that they would be willing to abide by, and the appellant had not had a chance to review them, and they continue it had to the next week. that's my review. >> clerk: the board of appeals last night. they had been scheduled to hear the appeal on 1228 funston avenue. -- by the property owner, a licensed contractor, without benefit of permit. at the hearing, the commission took d.r. and followed the staff recommend

review on ceqa for professionalits time to do the same thing for housing ....applause>( james ) the governor also promised to sign a rent stabilization plan to address the rising cost of housing... but some hope it's not a code word for rent control. ( darya ) the warriors are a roll before the all-star break. they have won 5 in a row. their latest is a victory over the utah jazz at oracle. in the first quarter ... klay thompson dislocates a finger on his left hand ... but luckily not his shooting hand. thompson returned in the 2nd and threw down a dunk. he finished the night with 22 points. in the fourth quarter kevin durant got some action d. then steph curry comes in clutch with a three pointer. final ... 115-108 warriors.they are in portland today before hitting the all- star break ( james ) as we head to break, here's another look at radar..a powerful storm is moving across the bay area. "if you are watching us on the kron on app - here is an 'extra' check on weather and traffic. visit kron-on-dot-tv to subscri

that was not included with the ceqa determination, however, my understanding was the building was not determined a resource. the only thing that we were looking at for this project was the capability of the proposed structure with the historic district. >> commissioner richards: if you don't mind, if you can e-mail me that. i would be interested in that regardless of how we rule. i am worried about the quality of life of the tall studios next door. 8 feet, when we start doing matching light wells, 3 feet and 3 feet, 8 feet and 8 feet, the cornice, it's more like having a roof over that open space. like, how far does that jut out? >> on the adjacent building? >> commissioner richards: yeah. >> so if you actually look on a-1.3, the photographs that have been provided. >> commissioner richards: maybe i'm confused. when you showed the picture that commissioner moore asked for, that doesn't wrap part -- that wraps around the side. >> if you look here -- >> commissioner richards: yeah, i misunderstood. i guess the interesting thing for me on liveability, these units get a certain amount of

when the studies wrapped up, there's 30% design, there is completed environmental need for ceqa, and there was request of an army corps of engineers chief signs the study, and it goes to congress for authorization and funding. >> and hopefully, our new start will kick in by then. >> yeah. so you can speak to this. so the army corps will select the national economic development plan -- >> will identify -- thanks. so every study that the corps does that the basis of which the benefits are economic in nature, so this is a flood risk reduction study, coastal storm risk reduction study. we will identify -- of the final array we have screened down, we think they are all acceptable, we will identify the most economic one. and that serves as the basis for cost sharing with the corps of engineers. so for example if that were a billion dollar plan, the corps said this is the most efficient, we identify that as the n.e.d. plan, we agree it's best for the public, for the city, for the long-term, for resilience, to choose a different or larger plan, but that income delta to the plan is 100% local

darrell steinberg will head a new homeless and supportive housing commission.he promise of reforming ceqa teh environmental quality act, to fast track housing projects brought everyone to their feet. republicans found other prospects for common ground with the govenor, but some say fueding with the president on border policy is not the way to go. the governor promised to sign a rent stabilization to address housing costs...but some hope it's not a code word for rent control. (catherine) the raiders had their first discussion about returning for one final season in oakland.... since the city filed suit over the team's planned move to las vegas. today -- the executive director of the oakland coliseum said he met with the raiders president last week about a lease for 2019. calling the meeting "meaningful but giving no details. the raiders have no lease for 2019 which is their final season before moving into a new $1.8 billion stadium in las vegas. the raiders had talks about sharing a stadium with the giants, but that was opposed by the 49ers. the raiders also could look into sharing levi's

it's the potential threat to ceqa. there's all kinds of other things where if it's not listed on the state register, then it's out of yoour hands and th state commission's hands. i don't know how best could we agendaize that? >> ask staff, and he'll make it happen. i'll work with the commission secretary. it sounds like some coordination with the planning commission is probably warranted. >> and staff is actually currently working on a memo for sb-50 for the planning commission due in a few weeks, and so we can certainly have that forwarded to this commission, as well. >> and then, the other thing i was going to say was i was thinking about whether it would make sense looking at the map of the phasing to think about areas that are particular -- under a particular development pressure and whether some of those might be moved forward. there's sort of a two-sided approach to take that i think is important to take. one is looking at identifying and protecting historic resources, but the other is we're identifying what coul

> yfrl, i don't have those details, but i do know it was analyzed according to the requirements of ceqa. i don't have those details, unfortunately. there's something we could look into more detail for you fung fung then lfung -- >> president fung: >> then let me go to a more technical question. we had a case where light and exposure for a regular unit is 25 feet minimum, but the a.d.u.s allow 15 feet. how was that to be determined to satisfy light and air. >> sure. i actually have a slide -- a bonus slide. >> she knew you were going to ask. >> president fung: maybe the question's been there before. >> i wanted to pare down my presentations in case it got too detailed. so on the presentation, it does talk about what our exposure to the planning code is. exposure is our requirement for access to natural light. as many people may know, the building code has a different or other requirement for access to light that can be met for potentially different ways. picking >> president fung: as you know, we primarily deal with neighbor-to-neighbor disputed. >> it used to be that the open area that

currently, ceqa is classifying it as a mitigated declaration. what we're asking for is the board of supervisors support of the approval of the emergency declaration by san francisco public utilities commission pursuant to san francisco ad stiff code chapter 6.60 and chapter 21.15 with a not-to-exceed value of $5 million. and the photo shows the existing main as it dives cross yslais creek. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? at the. hearing none, let's hear from the b.l.a. >> good morning, supervisors. severin campbell from the budget and finance office. there is a budget that we were provided. it's on page 17. table one, page 17 of our report. the budget's for a little more than $9.4 million. the emergency declaration is for up to $5 million. we are actually recommending a reduction in the emergency amount, to reduce it by $ $88,000, otherwise, we do recommend approval as recommended. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? let's open it up to the public. are there any m

well, it means for project notice and ceqa reviews are incorrect, but maybe more importantly, section36 c-25-b-2 on the screen. >> clerk: thank you, your time is up. >> thank you very much. happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay. no public comment. so we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeff taw, and i am an attorney for the project sponsors. they are present, as well as the project sponsor architect to answer any questions. i just want to address some of the points made in this discretionary review. one of the points made was that this project affected the light and privacy of the d.r. requester. i'd like to show you some photographs so we have a better idea of what the issue is. so if you take a look at where the red dot is, that is the project sponsor's current house, and the addition is going to go right here. this is the d.r. requester's home, and i think they're taking issue with the their view is going to get blocked once we build on thi

the preferred master plan having been done prior to any ceqa analysis of the prior site. this slide illustrates the challenges of the site over time. in this slide, the historic core is circled. you'll see the buildings outlined on both sides of 20th street, with the buildings shown in dark red, all the buildings in the core except for building 14, identified as both the most historically significant buildings at pier 70, and also the most at risk of collapse. as mentioned buildings 113 and 114, and building 104 were of unreinforced masonry construction type, and 113-114 was red tagged and cordoned off from public access due to safety concerns about its collapse. so following a competitive r.f.p. process and extensive negotiation with orton, the master lease was approved in 2014. it includes subleasing provisions similar to other port master lease developments, and includes public benefits such as public access, historic rehabilitation, and tax increment to fund pier 70 infrastructure. in a few minutes, as i mentioned, you will hear from adi about subleasing at this histo