under ceqa the word shall is mandatory. this means public agencies like the planning department must comply with the provision. the planning department has provided substantial evidence into the record the project is on a site which is on this list. in its attachment a, to the planning department's memo dated april 12, 2019, there's a letter from dtsc indicating it's part of the pg&e former gas plant site. the department references a property investigation report and work plan prepared under a voluntary cleanup agreement between dtsc and pg&e. dtsc includes the project site on the list it maintains of hazardous substances, release sites and subject to a response action. because the project is on this list, the planning department simply cannot rely on a class 32 exemption. to do so would be in violation of ceqa and an exemption applies and the e.i.r. must be conduct. contrary to the memo we have not argued the exception to the exemption applies. the contaminants is commonplace in the ground water and the planning department

ceqa discloses information. it's not a project approval.he section 295 process is essentially an entitlement. says that this project would be allowed to cast net new shadow on a park protected under section 295. as part that determination, recreation and park commission can consider the project's public benefits. >> supervisor peskin: say the lath part begin. >> the recreation and park commission balance that against net new shadow that it would cast on a park. >> supervisor peskin: through the president to mr. lee, where in section 295 which is proposition k does it say that? >> it's in the 1989 memorandum -- >> supervisor peskin: you said, i'm not trying to try you, section 295 of the code which is proposition k, not the memo that was subscribed to by the planning commission and the rec and park commission five years later. i don't see anything in section 2 focus of -- 295 of the code that says what you said. >> it's not in the text of the planning code section. section 295 directs the two commissions to establish procedures for evaluatin

that's what ceqa is for. do it in a ceqa process, have the consultants do it in a transparent way where the whole public can participate in the mitigation measures and at the end of the day you have enforceable mitigation measures under ceqa. that's what we're asking for and there's plenty of time. the existing contract goes to 2021. a mitigated process can be done in six to eight months and we'd have enforceable mitigation measures. maybe it would look like sharon meadows policy, maybe different. that's a great policy. charles salter came up with it, an acous -- acoustical engineer and the public can participate and the staff can participation and we'd have legally anniversariable mitigation plan and most importantly the concert can go on and all these people who love the concert, enjoy the concert can continue to love it but it will have reasonable sound levels that won't annoy as staff has admitted, it annoys the neighbors. that's the significant impact under ceqa and it ought to be addressed. thank you. i

this increase is not considered a substantial noise increase under ceqa. the noise would generally not interfere with sleep, because the use permit requires amplified sound and by 10:00 p.m. the appellant also submitted a letter from the noise consultants stating the project does not comply with the regulations for noise. however, this was based on an incorrect interpretation of the noise ordinance, because the recreation and parks department are not subject to the police code. instead, the parks department has its own regulations regarding noise from events. regarding transportation impacts, the use permit requires that the temporary demand on transportation facilities are addressed by agency coordination and a transportation management plan. therefore, significant transportation impacts would not occur. in conclusion, for the reason stated in our appeal response and the statements made at this hearing, the department continues to find that the ceqa determination complies with the requirements of ceqa, the categorical exemption is the appropriate environm

application or ceqa application. we are kind of litigating the history of proposition k, i would like to note that for the record. by the way, there are a number of city attorney written opinions that were published under city-attorney agnost that you could not trade shadow for money. that has been ignored. i was the only member of this board on the oceanwide project actually said that we were not going trade shadow for money. i respectfully submit that the city attorney should have advised board of supervisors that it was not appropriately or legally before us because of agnost's memo of 1986, pursuant to request from then supervisor bill maher that said you could not trade shadow for cash. i'm delighted that thi this appl before us just so we can 35 years later talk about what was before the voter and what the voters voted on relative to proposition k. some of that impacts this appe appeal. lot of this is something that the 11 of us need to think about as we continue to build more and more buildings. we're not crea

i have been brought here to otherwise challenge the ceqa appeal. the matter at hand is clear, an exemption to the examination applies and the review whether an e.i.r. and the board of supervisors must affirm this appeal. thank you. >> supervisor: i have a question. >> supervisor: supervisor. >> 1598 bay street resourced a cad -- cat x and is therefore now a condominium complex and it's there, correct? >> that's correct. >> supervisor: you're saying just because it wasn't challenged, that makes no difference to this appeal right now? >> that's right. >> supervisor: and did the developer of 1598 bay street at that time when cat x was an appropriate volunteer for additional environmental review and asked for a negative mitigated declaration or volunteer environmental review since the cat x is not appropriate? >> at that time, 1598 bay, they went through the process of the planning department provides to them. went through and and talked about the work plan and otherwise conducted appropriate remediation of the hazardous substances. >> supervisor: purs

i was recently contacted to review the ceqa analysis. i was presented a short brief. i think the striking and troublesome thing about the ceqa review was the failure it reconcile or mention the previous unanimous finding by the recreation and parks commission that smaller project on the portion of this same site proposed by the same developer, just three years ago, was found to have caught shadowing that would have significant adverse impact on the park. that resolution is exhibit 8 in your packet. when the same developer came forward with this project, which is larger, closer to the park, it was found that the shadowing would not be a significant impact. that's exhibit 9 from the brief. the preliminary project assessment from the planning department specifically inform the developer that it was important to note this previous finding of significant adverse impacts on the park and there was a directive from the department in that memo that was not followed by the developer. no mention is made anywhere in any of the environmental documents or any of the development doc

dwelling unit projects for a one-year pilot program and to affirm the secret determination -- the ceqa determination. >> thank you, president you. colleagues, i just wanted to state i have been working with supervisor brown on some important amendments to this ordinance, to the a.d.u. portion of this ordinance and the amendments we are working on with strengthen the reporting requirements and to also target the fee waiver to a.d.u. applicants who truly need the financial incentive, and exclude echo -- applicants who are real estate speculators and large landlords who would not -- you should not be receiving, and do not really need taxpayer subsidies to add an a.d.u. and increase the real estate wealth. supervisor brown? >> supervisor, are you offering amendments? >> we would like to request that this item be sent back to the committee for further amendments >> supervisor brown? >> thank you president yee. as we were talking about this, when we first sent to this through, something came up that we felt we needed to dig deeper into with the a.d.u., not the 100% affordable fee waiver, we

for rent restricted created under the ordinance from increased rates of transfer tax and affirm the ceqa determination. >> supervisor: colleagues, same house, same call? the ordinance passes on fired reading. >> clerk: the authorize the office of economic and workforce development to place up to 300 banners for three years to publicize the city's shop an dine retroactive and waves the fees associate with the placement and affirms the ceqa determination. >> supervisor: colleagues, same house, same call? >> i would like to rescind the vote for item 10. i forgot to comment. >> supervisor: let me finish with the item first. same house, same call. the ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. there's been a motion made to rescind the vote for item 10, right, supervisor fewer? seconded by supervisor safai. without objection the vote is rescinded. supervisor fewer. >> i'm thrilled to vote on the legislation that has been many years in the making and i'm proud all 11 supervisors have signed on as co-sponsors. thank you all for recognizing the urgent need for our city to invest in housing

ceqa review with city planning, note to file, so went to city planning, tida and the departmental staff, to questions, note to file. they found that the proposed project is very close to what was done in 2011, included in that ceqa. so they approved this project going forward as note to file. >> they reviewed what we are proposing. >> and i think i also read that one of the next steps, conceptual report. >> doing right now. >> will come up with a spec in essence for the project. >> bridging documents will then go into an r.f.p. if we go forward with the design-build-operate. >> alternative analysis report, 10% design. engineering, 35% design and part of the r.f.q., r.f.p. process. >> thank you. and wastewater treatment and some recycling? >> yes, so the proposed plant, every drop of water that goes through will go through the membrane bioreactor. the plant is so small, made sense to do a single stream. so all the water produced recycl recycled water quality. we can take every water drop from the plant. >> collection system in the scope of this as well? >> built and financed by the devel

and as it is represented in the design documents and ceqa analysis released in the fall of last year. also to talk about the exploration we've given to additional topics that we continue to hear comment on. and feedback on. and then a little bit about next steps and where we're going from here. so if i could have the screen? as we always do, we start in broader context. you'll remember this image perhaps, the southern bay front strategy. it's organizing framework that we have used to assess and talk about and connect this suite of projects in the southeast part of town. obviously considerable amount of housing and employment represented by these projects. most of which are entitled and now active and all of which have gone through this body in some fashion. so as always, good to remember this is one piece of the puzzle that is the southeast part of town. and then specific to this project, oewd is involved in a number of ways, one is helping to facilitate the engagement of all the departments and agencies that need to be so on a project like this. of course, the department staff as wel

the planning code to pay the fee on additional units and the application date and to determine the ceqa determination and make the appropriate finding. mr. president, this requires eight votes pursuant to the code. >> commissioner: same house, same call. the ordinance is passed unanimously. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 5 is an ordinance to amend the code to add to the gross receipt tax equal to 10% of the portion of the yearly tax liability to which the person or combined group enters into an agreement waving its right to a refund of the tax payments ed with any claim the homeless gross reset tax is invalid because it requires a two-thirds rather than the majority of the electorate to pass to equal a person's tax equal to 110% of a person's gift to support the fund and authorize the office of the treasurer and tax collector to accept gifts to support the fund. >> commissioner: colleagues, same house, same call? it passes unanimously. >> clerk: item 6 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code for lettering on interior and exterior signage of the harvey milk terminal.

if ceqa approval is obtained, will be back right here with the ratification of the final agreement. there be several other ancillary documents around architectural, general contractor, associated cross easement rights, as you can see, this is very complicated, vertically integrated, there's a lot of adjustment that will flow from this. we will have all of those packages for the board, hopefully to consider on one very long day, but perhaps a bunch of them -- and that will be sometime in 2021. we would anticipate construction beginning by late 2021 and delivery into the new project in 2023. there are opportunities to accelerate that timeline. we will take advantage of those wherever we see them, but this is a conservative, realistic schedule to help you understand when this delivery would happen. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. i think that was very thorough. this is obviously remarkably complicated, and i really appreciate your thoroughness. i'm actually amazed that we've gotten this far. i don't know if there any questions from committee members if n

height or density through a special use district, i believe we would need to have a discussion around ceqa implications. so as we sit here today, the rear yard modification is not within the scope of ceqa because the underlying zoning has not changed. again, i want to thank everyone who came out. these are not easy. especially when you see the concerns and have a body of law before you and have facts and evidence before you and you have to weigh that against what the law tells you. and for me, i feel like based on the facts that i've read, i've read the entire pact and presented today, i agree with the determination as the a categorical exemption and i would like to move it forward and table items 32 and 33. >> supervisor: okay. is there a second? seconded by supervisor walton. we have a motion to approve item 32 with the planning department's determination and table items 32 and 33. can we have a roll call on this? >> clerk: [roll call] . >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor: a vote of 11 ayes the item 32 is proved and item 32 and 33 are tabled. [gavel] . >> supervisor: i believe no

-- >> once ceqa review is complete, we can bring this back to park commission for concept design and approval. we're currently assessing how we can currently move forward with the next phases of design. the project is currently unfunded for construction, so we are awaiting on how we can figure that out. but -- but seeing if, in the meantime, we can still progress the design to a certain point, so we're still assessing that. thank you. >> so it will be some months or what? >> we hope to move through design without much of a lag, but we do need to bring it to rec-park commission before we would start any future phases, so we're just waiting for the timing of ceqa and when we can get it on our park agenda, and then move from there. >> but you think this year? >> on rec-park commission for sure. >> okay. i was very since attuned to doug nelson's very nice letter that he wrote to us. doug and i have been collaborating on a cultural landscape program that we have been teaching at u.c. berkeley extension. i think it's excellent that he's been part of the process to bring in both the histori

the board took up the ceqa appeal for 1052 folsom street for the demolition of five existing buildings and merger of the lots to one parcel and the construction of a mixed use unit. the ceqa appeal dealt whether the shadow was significant impact on the mark and supervisor peskin made comments about the original intent of prop k and the ability of the rec and parks commission and planning commission to hold joint hearings on shadow issues which did not happen in this case. he also discussed the ability of parks and recs to weigh the project against the protected shadow. this issue was germane because the rec and parks commission had rejected an earlier project that was significantly smaller a few years ago for shad joy impacts -- shadow impacts. the motion passed with supervisor peskin voting against and supervisor safai reused. on the issue of the c.u., the board has more latitude to evaluate the merits of the project. the public comments was long and dozens of children who live in the area and use the park as well as other members of the community spoke out against the project. their

williams said, there is something that says it is adverse, that is an impact under ceqa. and for that reason i will be in the minority -- maybe in the majority if i'm lucky -- and i'm going to dissent from the motion that has just been made by my friend and colleague from the district. >> president yee: thank you. any other comments on this motion? so roll call, please. >> on the motion to approve 21 and table 22 and 23. yee. [calling of vote] peskin no. ronen aye. stefani aye. walton aye. there are 7 ayes. -- there are 8 ayes and two nos with supervisor mar and peskin in the dissent. >> president yee: this motion passes. so, thank you, moving now to consider the conditional use appeal. item 25, 26, 27. consideration of the appeal of the conditional use authorization involves analysis of whether the planning commission's determination to authorize the project was appropriate. this hearing is a quasi judicial to reverse the planning decision or to authorize conditional use with additional conditions, eight votes of the board are required. do we have a motion? supervisor pe

the ceqa stated in the m.o.u. as well as the resolution that's before you for consideration sets forth -- it complies with chapter 31 of the admin code, so we're really confident that planning, the categorical exemption that planning has set forth complies with it. >> okay. secondly, this is an interim use, so is there any approval needed from the state land commission? >> not at this juncture. state land commission will come -- staff wanted to bring this to you prior to bringing this to state lands, but state lands has been in communication, but state lands approval is not required until the document is executed. >> okay. did i read the m.o.u. correctly as it relates to hazardous material, that that is the material of the operator and the city to take care of? >> actually, i'm going to ask the port staff on that. >> elaine, do you want to say something on the record? >> it is. it is the responsibility of the city and the operator for the m.o.u. >> okay. for hazardous material. okay. thank you. and i think that we

the project is shovel-ready in the sense it's exempt from further review under ceqa in reliance of the studies and they're complete and there's no significant environmental impacts. the site application is actively under parallel review by d.b.i. and we're ready to begin work as soon as the project is entitled. the sponsors committed for union labor for the hotel and the office portion has been pre-leased by sales force and a local hotel operator. one truly unique and hugely beneficial aspect of parcel f, if approved it will subsidize the development of a separate mixed-income unit at the site of the temporary trans bay terminal. a portion of the blocks will be permanently affordable. we believe it meets the prop criteria and ready to go and delivers benefit in exchange for a modest office allocation. thank you for your time and we look forward to formally present hopefully this year in 2019 to stay on track to break ground. i have additional materials i can leave. just let me know. >> i represent park and open space. i'm on the board of the mid market community business direct and liv

the project is exempt from ceqa as class 32 exception and general rule exception. the department has received two e-mail let ers of opposition. one is included in your packet. i'm forwarding a series of signatures after the packet was established. and it considering the potential loss of parking, architecture, height and scale. the planning department urban design team looked at the masting including the rear yard modification and the commercial street frontage and architecture as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner. my name is shawn malik on behalf of the sponsorship speaking on behalf of the business that aretired the property. our intention was to add value to the neighborhood namely, we saw it was a very old structure and we did end up running the facility with the existing laundry business it had. soon raefealized all the machin need to be replaced including rehabilitation. we found the laundry business was not really viable and we noticed the neighborhood was primar

as we go through ceqa, there might be slight adjustments to the final actual gross square foot age, so that number could -- footage, so that number could fluctuate. i don't want to say exactly what that number is, but we have an idea based on the size of the massing that you've seen today. that number is fairly certain in terms of the number of fee and the new stations. if the stations delivered under 25.5 million, the balance is paid in cash in closing to the city. >> okay. so the answer is no, it's not guaranteed. this construction is going to start in 2023. >> construction would be complete in 2023. it would start in 2021. >> yeah. and we all know what the cost of construction is in the city, and it seems to be going up, i've heard by astronomical numbers on a monthly basis. but what i want to be sure is if we're going to go through all of this brain damage -- and there's a lot of brain damage not just for you guys developing, but for the firefighters that have to move, that it's very clear for everybody and that the city gets the benefit of the bargain. because i would hate to give

they found that the proposed project is very close to what was done in 2011, included in that ceqa.they approved this project going forward as note to file. >> they reviewed what we are proposing. >> and i think i also read that one of the next steps, conceptual report. >> doing right now. >> will come up with a spec in essence for the project. >> bridging documents will then go into an r.f.p. if we g

we ask no more than you reconsider the ceqa exemption and if nothing else, apply to the noise level. thank you very much. >> president yee: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i've been a san francisco resident for 50 years plus. in that time, i have never heard something as noisy and as invasive as what emanates from outside lands music festival. it was especially bad in 2017. for three nights, i could not get any sleep because my home, on the northwestern slope of mt. davidson, separated by heights and hills would resonate with this deep boomy base that was loud enough and intense enough to rattle the light fixtures on my home and pictures on my window. i'm not opposed to outside concerts. great, do it. i just should not have to hear it late at night miles from the polo fields in my home and have it disrupt my sleep. thank you very much for letting me speak. have a great day, all. >> president yee: thank you. next speaker. >> mr. president, i'm too young a demographic to complain about outside lands, but i will say this, i was walking across golden gate bridge

the ceqa appeal was denied through unanimous vote. that concludes my report. >> president melgar: thank you very much. >> i have no reports from the board of appeals. historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, but nothing of interest to the planning commission. [laughter] coming forth. general public comment, commissioners, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public, that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to the agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i did have several speaker cards. >> president melgar: we have kevin, george, caroline, who filled out speaker cards. come on up. >> i have a presentation or handout for the commissioners. >> jonas: go ahead and start speaking. your time is running. >> hello, my name is kevin. i would like to talk about the dramatic changes to 3847 18th street. the property made dramatic changes. they went in multi-units to tenants to single