s adequate objective and complies with the california environmental quality act where ceqa, the ceqa guidelines and the chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code to the extent that issues in appeals of the conditional use authorization tentative map decisions are environmental issues they're addressing in the department's ceqa appeal response. the ceqa appeal including the november 7th and november 12th supplemental letters have been fully addressed by the department in the responses to comments document and the memorandum provided to the planning decision on september 4th. i will highlight several issues but all issues are raised. contrary to the appellant, the e.i.r. analyzed a range of project alternatives including two full partial preservation alternatives. the alternatives development process was robust and considered the significant ant and unavoidable impact of the project as required by ceqa. for the preservation alternatives, the department saw feedback from the historic preservation commission and other preservation experts. appellants submitted product alternati

and the ceqa case was clear.here is a case called mcqueen which we have cited and another case called creed, but in this situation, ceqa review has to be done first so that there is a cleanup plan that is legally enforceable and legally adequate and you can determine that it can, in fact,, be cleaned up. some of these sites can't be cleaned up to residential standards. we need to know that before we approve a project that puts human beings on top of contaminated soil. how will you clean it up, can it be cleaned up adequately, and will there be soil vapours, that over decades in the future, may or may not intrude into the space above? that plan has to be set forth before the project is considered and approved by this body so this body can make those conditions in -- and forcible and binding condition of approval. >> does this -- to add onto my first question, proportionally, how many projects of that kind are, for example, in the city of san francisco, if any? >> i'm sure there's others. hunters point is on the li

we also initiated and adopted ceqa findings yesterday. that was unanimous approval. we are here today after a long time also a lot of hard work by the entire city family. this has been a contribution from many city agencies, not only the planning department, obviously the mayor's office of housing and community development, and the department in the department of building inspection and the office of the city attorney. we couldn't have done this without their support and the assistance of the city attorney. there are too many people here to mention that have contributed to this, but i would like to single out a few of those. versus andrew perry who will be giving you the presentation today. it is hard enough to thoughtfully and diligently reveal one project let alone dozens of them and one entitlement. andrew has done an exemplary job in preparing for this hearing and taking over and mastering the subject. also kristin jensen who has been our lead in the city attorney's office. without her support we never could have achieved this. i am tremendously impressed by the

the planning commission will consider project approvals and will take similar actions in adopting ceqa findings acting on a resolution to approve the planning code amendments and three the master conditional use authorization instead of the master c of a and pta. the ordinance including the development agreement and approval and the target of having all project approvals effective by the end of february and then pursuant and development agreement and work at each property over the course of the following two years. so i will turn it over and available for answers and or other aspects of the projects and and thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you and good afternoon, preservation commissioners. katie from department staff. we are before you today with two entitlement items regarding the academy of art university or the academy. for the master permit to alter in the certificate of appropriateness for 12 properties. which are designated historic landmarks within landmark districts or within conservation districts under article 10 and article 11 of the planning code. to quickly summarize, th

section 101.1, and that the transaction contemplated by the ena is not defined as a project under ceqa guidelines, sections 15378 and 15060(c)2, subject to city's discretionary approval after the completion of environmental review; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of the ena and this resolution, as defined herein. >> thank you. before you is a property across the street on grove. the city owns a t-shaped property consisting of 240 vanness, 155 and 165 grove street. about 9,000 square feet. the two buildings that are improved on the site have been deemed not historical, are registered in the vacant abandoned yielding program and are generally unsafe from seismic performance standpoint and are not occupied. the garden was located at 1625 grove street i was a collaboration between the city and two nonprofits. currently it is unused today. all of the properties were declared surplus in 2015. in 2016, the analyzation of suitability for development as 100% affordable housing, pursuant to the surp

this isn't just something for ceqa. mission area plan has its own requirements as well. you heard about the housing. and you read our brief. it's listed in the brief. but regarding this foundation, potential foundation work, commissioner honda, you would know, if there's an existing foundation that is 8 feet deep and has been abandoned is there a possibility that that's going to need to be excavated? this is not been addressed in any of the documentation that has been provided. so there are grave concerns that they are going to get in there, they are going to find debris and they are going to need to keep digging and they are going to need to do water to get the work done to remediate the soil, even if they are only doing the slab. a two-foot mass slab for a building of this size after seeing all the work at the adjacent buildings that have been done at the greek church everything else, i don't think that's going to be the case when they get in there. and a lot of the neighbors don't. and they are very concerned. and this whole idea of this affordable housing being 18 pe

there is in addition to the ceqa review these facilities have already gone through gone through ceqaxemption and so forth the verizon has to comply with a national review. that review under fcc there's an agreement between epa and fcc that allow certain facilities to be exempt. any facility that's 33 feet, ten meters in the air is exempt. and there are other categorical exemptions. it took the categorical exemption that the fcc had granted for small cell facilities and said no, you can't do that on tribal lands and you can't do it in the national historic situations. that review has nothing to do with the ceqa eir. totally different. the review done by fcc in terms of their environmental review. and it puts you through a different environmental review where you have to go through further environmental review with the fcc but has nothing to do with an eir. these are cot categorically and this facility certainly would be because of its low wattage. i think somebody is having a coughing fit. i believe that there was -- i think i covered all the appeal issues. i would be happy to answer

if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's been a motion to approve the ceqa findings, approval the development agreement and approve the master conditional use authorization with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, i believe there is a desire through the chair to take item 22 out of order. staff is still not here. >> president melgar: yeah. we may take the next -- so i see a lot of folks here for item 22. i would like to take it out of order next, but the staff is not here, and i think the executive director is not here, either -- okay. so -- but the staff is not here yet, so we're going to hear the next item, but then, you're next. is that okay? >> clerk: right. so we'll take up -- item 17 has been continued to december 19, placing us on item 18 for case number 2016-003994 cua at 55 belcher, conditional use -- excuse me, folks, if you are leaving or staying for that matter, if you could do so quietly, we would appreciate it. excuse me, folks, we do have other business to attend to. so

they didn't do when they created this new ceqa exemption. i know you didn't get paper before but there you have it in paper. this should be continued in the gentleman is willing to sit down and negotiate with the neighbors. i asked to sit down with them and talk the last couple of days and he ignored that request. >> thank you, very much. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is alexander mulder and i work in the neighborhood. i came to the first meeting here. i also attended the neighborhood meeting and now i'm speaking. i spoke the first time as well. i followed this project. i've watched the developer work with the neighbors and changed the materials. i'm fully in support of this house how it is. it's a great-looking house and fits in with the neighborhood and i appreciated the fact that they added a unit and i thought it was wise for the neighbors to recommend that so i saw both sides and i think now the project as it is is great. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> >> good evening, commissioners, neighborhood council. just a

considered the ordinances allowing for the development at 3332 alaska street as well as the cu and ceqa appeal. the proposed project is a mixed use project with 744 dwelling units 3500 square feet of he retail and childcare. the planning commission certified on september 5, 2019. while the appellant raised 18 concerns the main item was the claim they failed to review potential design modifications to decrease it's hoss toric use impact. they assert one of the alternatives should be approved instead of the project. the department maintained the community alternatives were considerably like the alternatives discussed and the alternatives could not be built and would not achieve the units desired. public comment during the hearing centered around concerns of the tree removal at the project site and its impact on climate changes and concerns over the type of retail use permitted and the allowable hours of operation. proponents supported a community alternative endorsed by the laurel heights improvement association. regarding the tree removal and how that would exacerbate climate change staf

they went back did the ceqa determination to determine it was considered exempt and presented revised demolition calculations that were reviewed and blessed and included in the site plans we submitted with our short letter. one thing about the plans is as i was preparing for the hearing, there was some small changes that mr. sanchez had asked for, and for whatever reason, those changes were made but the set of plans that are included in our letter did not include those small changes. they were really just changing the unit designations and i gave mr. sanchez a copy and i have a copy of the accurate set here. none of the design changes are different from what was presented to you, but i want to make sure we have the accurate set of plans as requested by planning in the record so i can submit this or present it to whomever as necessary. >> just make sure mr. sanchez has it. >> a he does. >> with that, i request you approve the project as revised for the reasons we stated before. we believe it addresses the concerns of the planning commission and adds rental housing to the city's housing

it is higher than ceqa. come on folks. take the ring, do something for your people. you got your out. you don't have to wait for the department of health. you got what you need from the dc circuit of appeals yet you rubber stamp them, rubber stamp them rubber stamp them. what are you doing? >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm jess warner. i'm just want to introduce myself to you because i didn't get to last time and say a few things. i want to say that based on the knowledge that i have that i can share with you the data i have and the tremendous amount of information that many of us have, mr. alberton misleading you tremendously and there's a ton of data i encourage you to read to be fully informed about the truth. so again, i'm here right now because i've been working on this issue partly because i'm also electrically sensitive. i discovered this when i was in grad school at brown for environmental science and i have been aware that i get headaches and can't sleep around wireless. that's why i don't live in san francisco. i came from an hour away. i p

commission to look at all facts available to us regardless of where it is in the adjudication process with ceqa. the important part in that responsibility cases is that to -- contractors provide due process, we are as we're providing due process in two places. when they submit their information, we're saying submit a copy of your citation. if you've appealed it, submit a copy of everything you submitted to appeal it. and further, if you'd like to write us an explanation further explaining the explanation and circumstances, we'll consider it. in this, we'll have our expert safety consultant do an evaluation and a score. the final decision is up to the manager and his designee. >> excuse me. should i wait or ask a question? >> i think he's almost at the end. >> i'm almost done. >> okay. >> the final thing is should a contractor not be determined prequalified, so they're not qualified to bid a project, we're requesting a hearing before a neutral evaluator, and they can present a case to try to overturn the decision. the scoring sheet's in your packet, the slide goes through it all in more detail,

supportive housing and to remove the monetary limit of the funds under the housing fund and modify the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> president yee: next time, press a button. >> supervisor haney: i'm sorry. >> president yee: supervisor, you're automatic. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you for allowing me to return to this. this legislation has been a number of months in the making. initially, we introduced this legislation because it was so urgent we introduced it before the nexus study was out and we wanted to start the process. when the nexus study did come out which sort of allows us to justify increasing the fee, we were able to go through a process with the community and ultimately with labor, hearing from businesses and all of you to come up with what is in front of you today. i want to thank the many different organizations who were a part of bringing this legislation forward, advocating it forward. somcan, hispanic labor council, supervisors and cosponsors mar, fewer, walton, ronen, yee, peskin, mandelman, and safai, and i believe brown, as w

this action constitutes the approval action for the purposes of ceqa. >> kathy how, assistant general manager for infrastructure. i can answer any questions. >> that would be fine. are there any questions? we don't have to have a presentation on this. any public comment? may i have a motion? >> so moved. >> move it. >> i'll second it. all those in favor? opposed? the moel the motion carries. next item. >> clerk: item 15, approve and authorize the general manager to implement safety prequalification procedures to qualify construction contractors to bid on sfpuc public works projects. >> hello, commissioners. the item before you is the proposed safety prequalification procedure to qualify contractors to bid on sfpuc construction contracts. randy parent will present this, but i just want to give a little background. he has over ten years experience as a deputy city attorney, and he is the city attorney assigned for all sfpuc-related issues. we keep him exceptionally busy. on average, san francisco advertises 30 to 35 construction projects worth about $350 million worth of projects a year

provide three family-size units and structure has been determined to not be a historic resource under ceqaapplicable requirements and is consistent with the intent of the zoning and this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. >> is this the second hearing up three minutes and any public comment will have one. >> ok, thank you. good evening, commissioners. very briefly, top tunney and the project sponsor asked me to help with the project following the last hearing. the last substantive hearing knowing significant changes needed to be made. and we've achieved that we believe. there was some difficulty in that there were conflicting interests and some people wanted three units and some people wanted two, some didn't like the fourth floor and some were ok with it. in the end, we just followed staff direction. as much as we could zoo and i think completely. there's three units. the fourth floor has been reduced by a third. and flor area and as stated removed the roof deck, expanded the light wells and i would turn to our architect who can go through the de