>> the ceqa process because it is not being done yet, we do not have a set of alternatives. we will need to agree on the set of alternatives that accomplish the board's goals. as we scope that eir and before we move forward with evaluating them. for example under ceqa it is required that you analyze a know project alternative, if nothing else,. [inaudible] don't hold it against me personally, we do need to analyze, under the law, not doing anything in comparison to many of the options that we would consider. clearly we have, on the table, putting panels up. what i am taking away from today is just what i would do as preliminary instruction from the board, on the starting list of alternatives you would like me to consider. it is unlikely to be the full list of alternatives we will end up evaluating under ceqa. >> just so it is clear, with an option included removing all of the walls from the building be a part of the analysis, as the resolution is already written? >> as the resolution is already written, i do not know. the current resolution that is before you, not the propos

denied that the murals are historic resources, but clearly under ceqa they are. so if any of you have contact with members of that board, you need to inform them of their legal obligations under ceqa. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> commissioners, pardon me, i'm not actually here for the subject, i'm here for the next one. my wife was vice vice president of the student body in washington and 52, including my generation there are now six generations of family living in san francisco. i have had the pleasure of seeing paintings in france, i have seen public art carved murals, if you will in cambodia, and all around the world, and there isn't one that isn't controversial, that isn't, by some, a contra version of history. the initial presentation from the staff mentioned to you that there's no depiction of washington crossing the delaware or kneeling in the snow, and yet we have renowned art that shows that. this, to me, these murals are a teaching tool. it is an educational institution where else do you put a teaching tool

but if there is a ceqa process, then there is a possibility of demolishing the site. with mitigation you could then mitigate that significant impact >> you said if it went through the c.o.a. process it can be demolished right cannot be demolished? >> the c.o.a. process, well -- >> i will jump in real quick. technically they are allowed to grant demolition for a landmark, but it is under your purview. if it is put on the landmark, then it is listed as a landmark. in that case, while being a landmark doesn't prohibit explicitly demolition, obviously is not something that we would recommend or would've -- or would have occurred in the past, given the history of this commission. >> can i jump in here? but under the ceqa process, then there would be preservation alternatives, so, you know, referencing what the property owners have mentioned here today , they would be an opportunity to review some kind of a compromise between housing and some level of preservation. >> a good way to think about this is it is about how historic or what kind of designation. in either case, it

so i think that gets to ceqa. given that my understanding is there are pesticides on the site and they -- i seem there has been an initial study done, or maybe not. has there? [laughter] >> we are in the process of doing ceqa review on the housing project. it is my understanding that we are still of the preliminary stasis -- phases of that. there hasn't been a full study on what the hazards are on the site. my understanding is we don't think that there are other significant and unavoidable impacts for the housing project that would require an e.i.r. except for the demolition of the historic resources at this time, but there are also various requirements for cleanup and rolling and other processes that the department would require, which i am assuming we would have to go through for a housing project. of course, we haven't looked at in urban agriculture projects. >> right. ceqa is happening, a focused analysis is happening one way or the other. you have received an active application by the development team for hou

it's nonbinding, but we could give a question of what would be appropriate steps under ceqa. >> that would be my question. miss vanderslice, what's your opinion? >> allison vanderslice. you know, the planning department has determined that the high school is a historic resource and that the murals are character defining features, and so that regard, it would be our opinion that there would be a potential impact under ceqa. it's my understanding that the school board would therefore need to do ceqa review. >> so one further question. where are we at in the actual process of the landmarking? have we heard it twice and forwarded it on or in between? >> that's my understanding but shannon can take the questions on the landmarking. >> thank you. >> so it has been initiated and recommended to the board of supervisors? it has also been introduced at the board of supervisors. it has not been scheduled for committee hearing. >> okay. so that's something we could ask for an update on. commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: well, in connection with our duties to advise the board of supervis

no separate review, no ceqa so we can approve them.e have a very limited timeframe like four months to approve them. we just established the first one in central soma. the city can establish its own parameters. only a project up to 16 defeat, i think, can but, the hope is to do the same thing here in the hub. projects a certain size, or whatever can be approved ministerial e. in which case, we would still have the mitigation measures to rely on. otherwise if we didn't have the mitigation measures for historic resources in their we would not be able to consider historic resources in this hsd process. it's a little bit unusual, it's a new animal, but that is our approach. >> there won't be any project related eir's? >> probably not. we don't know for sure. but probably not. there could be other environmental documents that tear off of it, yes. >> there is a lot of information that was presented so i may not have found it, may it's in here. where does it say that one a is the first step and if not achievable it goes -- if i had a proposed

that's the overall program and all you're doing is approving the ceqa document. the radar equipment has already been paid for. so the installation that will take place on montara mountain will be by our staff. there won't be a contractor hired to do that. i want to take up one particular set of issues. >> this is not part of the wisup it's in-house? >> no, this is a different project. >> no, this is not a wisup project. >> this is in-house? >> yes, this will be performed in-house, yes. so the slide here shows the upper left-hand corner the aqpi and radio installation where that will be located on montara mountain. we had to deal with some issues here, and i wanted to make sure the commission was aware of those issues. in doing the biological surveys for the project we found near montara mountain a habitat for particular endangered butterflies. so one of the things that we have done as part of our normal watershed management activities something that had fallen into disarray there was the security fence on the left-hand border there, that black line with the hashi

based on ceqa? >> i don't think that would have triggered an e.i.r.t would have triggered a more robust cat x. and a submittal her preparation of a geotechnical review. it would have been improved by environment all staff. >> that is one of the interesting things that when mr. kern came on july 18th i asked whether there was a geotech report and he said there was, but in the packet that he gave us, there wasn't. are you aware of any geotechnical report? >> i have not seen one. i have talked to the sponsor about if one was prepared. >> project sponsor do you have a geotechnical report for this project? >> please speak in the microphone. >> the subcontractor has, i believe. we don't have it with us for this meeting. the permit that we brought for the open excavation would have taken a proximally six to eight weeks to get. we would have to submit for it and we would have got it. we would not have required an e.i.r. we would not have required a 311 notification. we skipped about six weeks in about $15,000 in fees. >> what understand as i got the special i

today to adopt the final mitigated declaration and mitigation monitoring program as required under ceqa for the montara mountain rainfall prediction and radio replacement project. the real key of this

it still required ceqa. when you're looking at 6-12 months, or 1822 months dependent on the needs. >> if i was to add to that, i do think the timeframe for approving 100% affordable projects, as i understand it it has been cut by something like 60% from our previous review times largely because of sb-35, which is great. i think i mentioned this to a couple of commissioners recently. it had an effect on our budget revenues. in a logical way because we no longer receive the ceqa fees from those projects. it had a budget impact on us. it helped those projects obviously so we didn't have to pay those fees. for all of the other projects, for projects that have come in the door since the executive directive was issued, projects since one of december of 2017. so far, we are on track to meeting the target set up and the executive directive. for earlier projects that were going through a larger environmental process, not so much. we are currently on target for most of the projects. i think we will have a report, next

i am handing you the 2012 ceqa that i referred to. >> thank you.eaker, please. >> good evening commissioners, coalition. the intricacies and irregularities of this project are beyond and definitely beyond the ten minutes that the requesters had. suffice it to say, that the whole saga of the lot split is questionable. the reason i'm saying that is because what we have on file, which is architectural site survey. that is not an official survey certified, and i have proof in the putting right here. overhead please. this is the record of the survey that was filed for lot number 25, i believe. as you can see right here, the status is pending applicant. if you look here, it is hard to see through the caption, close caption, but it does say the last status that was reported for this, the survey, is july 12 , 2019, says pending submittal. clearly there is no certified recorded survey. how can we possibly build a building on a lot that wasn't surveyed. >> the ask is simple. do not approve this project. please take d.r. wait for the survey to come back and r

. >> staff may address what we did exactly, but we had this issue when ceqa can only analyse what the existing conditions are. if work is done without permit, there is a challenge there under ceqa. >> that doesn't sit well with me you say, that is existing condition, when truly, it was with -- 800 units are no longer there. that boggles my mind. that is common sense. i'm sorry, i'm cranky, it's late , this makes no sense to me. >> commissioner fong? >> it has happened twice now when i brought forward what was basically a building condition, excuse me, a building code issue , and i was reminded that, you know, this is a planning code issue, and building code issues are going to go through their own course and their own views as to what will be required. in my mind, what is before us is basically three levels of residence in three separate units. one in the basement, one at the ground floor, and one in the second and third floors. should one want to have all that additional information, i'm not sure what that does to our decision as to whether these three units, on the a -- on a land-us

the ceqa process is a process. because of all of this that we see here, we see this as an example of the fight that we have ahead of us. if we really seriously want to remove structural racism and white supremacy from our education system. i identify as black. i have learned a lot in this process. it is up to me to listen to indigenous people, follow their lead. i just want to add a democratic process can be an equitable, when we put people's rights for provo. i wanted to be mindful, when we make these ballot measures, or we have a whole school of over something, like we did at george washington high school the last time around, the majority at that school is for white students. it was at a time we didn't even integrate our school district. i hope the media here makes that , it's also important to report on demographics, who is speaking, right? i been noticing a different articles, some people are getting more time, on the microphone, when it comes to what is being reported. some people are doing a better job than

units projects for one-year pilot program and affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa >> thank you. well, first i wanted to thank mayor breed and her staff for her work on this legislation to wave building code fees for 100% affordable housing and also accessory dwelling units. i'm proud to co sponsor this legislation along with supervisor brown. and i appreciate the opportunity for us to have brought this back to the j.a.o. committee for a second hearing to consider some amendments and today i'm introducing throw amendments to this legislation. i want to change the date -- wait a minute. i don't know if you guys got this. >> here is the deadline for you. so, i have three amendments that i'm introducing. first i would like to amend to change the retro activity date from february 26th, 2019, to june 1st, 2019. so that is a total length of the pilot program remains at about 15 months as originally contemplated and expected by d.b.i. secondly, while i support the legislation waving building fees for 100% affordable housing projects, i would like to amend to include report

but how long they have gone through the process on average, and maybe by tape of unit or the ceqa approval process. i know we are not looking at projects before that, but comparing that with the year prior. we can show that approvals are happening quicker because of this. thank you. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. very great questions. i will say thank you to planning staff, to our planner technicians and support staff who have really jumped in to organize and make this happen. we are continuing to get better as a process, what really appreciate fast commitment to bring these systems into more transparency and accessibility, and really looking forward to the community conversation. thank you. >> one quick item. on the public notice, i think we will see that, but that is great i get those notices on my home, and as someone who set up here for six years, sometimes they are not easy to figure out what your neighbor is doing. i know you wanted to change those and the department wanted to change those, but they are not working for people who care about what is going on. i am glad that is

quality act, these proposed tariff amendments are not considered a project, and therefore not subject to ceqa review. commissioners, thank you for the opportunity of addressing you today. this concludes my report and i respectfully request your approval of the proposed amendments to the port of san francisco tariff number 5 with respect to cruise ship passenger fees. i'm available to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner gilman? >> i want to say thank you for the report, it was very thorough it is exciting to see our cruise business will increase, and i'm supportive of the item. >> i am supportive of the item. >> good report, mike. i see andre is here. i guess i have to be supportive, i am the president. [laughter] but the fact is, i would like to see san francisco get up to a million passengers a year. i was just recently up and you know, alaska, and you see 30,000 people and they have one -- they have one-way 6 million passengers a year. i think it really