the plan on which the cities ceqa exemption relies. the fight goes are structurally unhealthy, that is not what the arborist said and the 500,000-dollar census said. the city has made the determination that ficus, as a species, not viable and no part of the ceqa determination. taking out these trees by the dozens without wanting to replace them, this removal of this one particular species as a project and it requires a ceqa evaluation. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from mr. carnes. >> batter up. >> that was appropriate at our last week's hearing. >> i just wanted to go over the arithmetic again on what i came up with. there are currently 56 vacant new planting sites on trent eight. enough to accommodate 56 trees from sfmta. no 14 trees need to be removed. you can put those 56 trees in tomorrow morning. without removing any trees. also, mr. buck says we are relying on a third party assessment performed by arbor pro. it's not like i found the census on a park bench and took it home and made use of it. this was actually commissioned b

plus the ceqa document, it is a subsequent e.i.r. and it uses, as a base, the analysis that was done for the 2008 area plan e.i.r. the draft subsequent e.i.r. analysers two different sets of options or the site's residential density to capture a range of possible development on the project site. the developer his proposed option is proposed by reservoir community partners and the additional housing option has been developed by the city to maximize affordable housing. development under each of the two options would entail the same land uses, street configurations, and site plans. the additional housing option adds one story to each of the buildings and includes smaller units to increase the number of residences. the developers proposed option includes 1100 dwelling units and a public parking garage. the additional housing option includes 1550 units and no public parking garage. the draft subsequent e.i.r. also analysed is four project variants. they are located at the same project site and they all relate to the parking garage locatio

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

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

in addition to this alternative, required by ceqa, the e.i.r. includes alternatives, which result in a less than signaled -- significant historic impact. two partial preservation alternatives, which require, but do not eliminate the significant historic impact. lastly, a conforming alternative for a total of six alternatives. during the public comment, a consensual plan for alternative and very impaired they claim these alternatives will provide the same number of residential units as this project, and proposed variant. these alternatives should be included in the e.i.r. as shown in the site plan, the alternative in the variant are similar to the alternative full preservation residential alternative in the e.i.r. similar to -- [inaudible] such that it could be characterized as misuse -- mixed-use element. -- development. the department carefully review these alternatives. with the assistance of the department of public works. the public works analysis concludes they overestimates a number of residential units, in the alternative, or variant. in

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

the city to quit claim it's interest in the vacation areas to the housing authority to affirm the ceqa determination and make appropriate findings. >> supervisor yee: can we take this same house same call? without objection, this ordinance has passed unanimously. madam clerk, please call item number 7. >> clerk: number 7 is an ordinance to wave the banner fees under the public works code for up to 300 banners placed on city-owned poles for a period beginning september 24th, 2018, to celebrate the culture and visibility of the filipino cultural heritage district. >> supervisor yee: same house same call. this is passed in first reading. madam clerk, call the next item. >> clerk: an ordinance to appropriate 11.5 million to fund balance to the port for the san francisco seawall, earthquake safety and disaster prevention in fiscal year 2019-2020. >> supervisor yee: can we take this item same house same call? this ordinance is passed in first reading unanimously. call the next item. >> clerk: item number 9 is an ordinance to levee property taxes for the city, san francisco unified school dis

it may be be approvable, but has not received her review, there has been no ceqa authorization.we don't think that the board could actually take action to approve the project on the plans of they are putting forward to you today, because, no ceqa determination has been made on the faÇade determination. and had to be another, you know, continuance to have that address. again, that is why i should be on a separate permit. do it right the next time. >> so -- i -- i -- i hate to make comparisons to a previous case, i just to be convenient. it happens to be convenient that it was the last case that we heard. as i was clearly a proponent o of -- nudging you to move forward, and have a reconsideration, because we are talking about a couple of windows on a door. this seems more like we are trying to move a small mountain. i can clearly see your point, on this case, and maybe it is not the same, and maybe we should listen to you about going in the direction -- is this a little bit more of a mountain than two windows on a door? >> i think there are additional complications here. yeah. >>

you can't say that the ceqa exemption for the urban forest plan, they never bother to find or execute that plan. subsequent to that exemption they went ahead and created an entirely new large you targeted initiative for us to civic type of tree that was never discussed in the plan. i respectfully request that the board asked the city to comply with urban forest plan's requirement. >> thank you. we will hear from mr. carnes, the appellant in 19 -- 081. >> welcome back. >> good evening. my name is lance carnes, i'm in north each resident. the reason i am here of healing the 16th street phase one removal order. my north beach neighborhood, and several others in the city have been hit with orders on most trees order for removal are ficus. this first side shows, sorry, the different neighborhoods that have been hit. we heard from the main library tonight you north beach you heard last week the tonight is 16th street phase one. i will come back to this side. the one i was researching, bureau of urban forestry in their handling of street trees come i found a database that said a 2017 tree su

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

. >> 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

subject matter of item 16, ordering vacation street in the sf project phase two and to affirm the ceqaake the appropriate findings. >> colleagues, we are convening as a committee as a whole and open the hearing on this order for arbor trail hope sf project, page two. does the district supervisor, yes, supervisor walton. >> thank you so much. colleagues, once again, if you recall, hope sf project is the biggest revitalization project we have had here in san francisco, and it is making sure that we provide adequate rehabilitated, updated, new housing for public housing residents in the southeast sector of san francisco. we have seen some of the new developments, as well as we are working very hard. this is very important. i am cosponsoring this action with mayor breed. this will allow vital public housing revitalization to move forward with construction as well as new streets and utilities. this ordinance, was adopted will support the construction of the maximum number of phase two replacement public housing units. 157 units in phase two, 619 units in total sitewide, and an un-'s -- on-s

for a one year pilot program and to do -- to determine the ceqa. can i have a roll call? [roll call] there are 11 in favor. >> this ordinance has passed unanimously. please call the next item. >> item two is an ordinance ordinance to amend the health code to streamline a small business permitting and determine the ceqa determination to make the appropriate findings. >> okay. can we take this same house, same call. without objection this ordinance has passed unanimously. these call the next item. item three, 190048. ordinance amending the planning code to 1) require building setbacks for buildings fronting on narrow streets, 2) modify front yard requirements in residential districts, 3) increase required rear yards in single-family zoning districts by five percent, 4) amend the rear yard requirements for through lots and corner lots in certain districts to permit second buildings where specified conditions are met, and 5) allow building height increases to existing stories in existing nonconforming buildings in order to accommodate residential uses; affirming the planning

so it's sent out for all city agencies if they're the health reason or public-health and there's a ceqa process required and we have them a noise study and it is rioux video by the department of public speak and we can have the department of public-health to make sure it's still within compliance. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the individual from the public of health. >> would you like her to speak? >> >> we have sent amounts of information to the department of public-health this board. i say copious but it's nothing in comparison to what we've sent you. there's data on data presented by the public it's harmful to the public. in the spirit, and we are not scientists and we're not ta assisted and we're not engineers and we're members of the public about we have sent this information to the department of and requested the department of public-health and that was several months ago. when are we to expect the sponsor department of health after giving you all this information provided to us from the public that kids we're poisoning the public when we take an action to approve these transmit

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 repor

or renewable sources and authorize the director of the environment to adopt rules and to form the ceqaetermination. >> president yee: same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. please call the next item. >> we have two mayoral nominations. item 4 is mayoral nomination to the historic preservation commission for the consideration of chris foley, for term ending december 31, 2020. >> president yee: before we do that, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee, thank you for the one-week continuance. nothing that changed -- nothing has changed. there has been no movement from the administration or the supervisor, but i do hope the fuss that i have put up will inform us going forward. and particularly inform the administration as to what i think is the appropriate way to reach out to board members, particularly in this case, the board member who authored section 4.135 of the charter, for the historic preservation commission. and moreover, to actually reach out to the community. as i said last week, not only is san francisc

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

we're happy to report that ceqa should be done later this week, allowing us to move into the entitlement hearings. it is also adding a new outdoor plaza and it will involve comprehensive, interior and exterior improvements that will benefit all tenants of the building and also insure it's long term preservation future. i'm here because we have a concern we won't be able to make a hearing here until december, particularly if this commission moves to one hearing a month schedule. our next step in the entitlement process is to come to this commission for certificate of appropriateness. and we respectfully ask that you consider keeping two hearings a month, at least in october and november, so we may have an opportunity to make our case. thank you very much. >> jonas: any other member of the public? seeing none, close public comment. department matter. item 1, director's announcements. >> i don't have an announcement from the director, but about the director. as you all know, our beloved director is john ram, is retiring on march 1st. i wanted to inform you that tomorrow at planning commissi

ceqa does not take into consideration the noise factors of the commercial district. misrepresentation of the developer, to our group, stated they would be placing two small restaurants on california, and this weekend we find 30,000. [inaudible] we support most of what laurel heights is. i think we can send this back from her car more compromises. instructing the planning department to work and study the two alternatives i come up with a compromise. eliminate the commercial, and replace it with 25-35 middle/low income housing units. keep the existing historical building intact. include the stakeholders this time, not have just speeches with different things said. put us all in. with the behavior of the developers require, once, will the low income units to be built first? i don't know. the project has some very good merits, that they have some other things. i think we can do better. that is my speech. one for your files. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> first of all, i object to statements being made that it is better to have a proper due -- obstruct -- construc