register criteria, secretary of the interior standards, and ceqa. i can't speak to the legalities, but if you would go to the third slide, i'd like to point out some physical characteristics of the existing house on the subject property and compare them with the proposed design. the intent here is to give you specific physical qualities that contrast between existing building and the proposed building. first of all, there's an existing side set back on the west side that is lost in the proposed design. secondly, the front landscape existing is continuous with the district whereas the proposed has a retaining wall around a sunken front courtyard, which is kind of a private landscape. thirdly, the existing house is based in grade whereas before, the proposed one floats above grade, according to the architect. like the other houses in ceqa, the existing has a complex form with a roof provide meeting the sky. the proposed is a pure geometric form. the existing front facade has a regular composition that is reads from floor to floor, where the new is a c

i've reviewed the ceqa findings. i hear some of the impacts around wind, but overall, i feel like they are satisfactory, and i can support them. i also am excited by the land's dedication. i have great confidence in the department staff that works on land dedication and affordable housing. i appreciate that this project will bring in affordable housing fees at a time which we know that the city will be hurting for fees and affordable housing fund will be hurting for fees. there's something that i didn't get to say earlier that i just feel that is important to say, and it's broad comments and related to equity planning. it turns out that people of color that are dedicated to planning are not a monolith. we ha we are as dedicated in our relationship to planning as we are to equity and our community, and we are dedicated in making sure that there are diverse voices and prospective voices represented in strategies. and in this case, i think when making sure that equity plans related to the hub are instituted, that the pe

i'm very concerned with how this kind of misuse might be afforded by the new ceqa ordinance with the standard. the ordinance is implemented and the result would be that even more projects would be made exempt from public review under ceqa. it was to enact anxiouses to document and to consider the environmental implications their actions, and the environmental review process that is involved in the process by which a public gave input to public agencies on projects and policies. by limiting the environmental reviews with the proposed ordinance to have a negative impact on transparency and public participation. of course we all hope that the past uses outlined in the article are not predictive of future problems. but i am concerned that the ordinance could cause more abuse of the public trust in the future. as you commissioners are aware, the ordinance will be reviewed on july 15th. i encourage you and the listening public to read the june 7th "chronicle" article and please reconsider and do not further weaken the ceqa process in san francisco. thank you very much. >> you have two ques

i am very concerned about how this misuse of ceqa might be supported by the new local ceqa ordinance and that standard environmental requirements. if the s.e.r. ordinance is implemented and the result will be that even more projects could be made exempt from public review under ceqa. ceqa was enacted to require public agencies to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. the environmental review process has involved into a democratic process by which the public can give impact to government agencies and policies and by limiting the environmental reviews proposed to s.e.r. ordinance would have a negative impact on transparency and public participation in the ceqa process. of course, we all hope that past abuses of the ceqa process outlined in the chronicle investigative study are not predictive of future problems. but i am concerned that in the wrong hands, the s.e.r. ordinance could open their way for more abuse of the public's trust in the future. and as you commissioners are aware, the ordinance will be reviewed at your commission on july 30. i encourag

and ceqa. i'm requesting the hearing be continued and the officer be present to provide impartial answers to the board's questions. this project has a multiple of problems that need to be rereceived before you approve this permit. i focus on environmental injustice and doing so, i have experienced firsthand corruption of government and a pews of authority. it would be a great disservice not to take a moment to recognize the social injustices being fought against it. my remaining time is a moment of silence in support of black lives matter. >> we'll move to mr. olsen or mr. nelson. >> jeffrey here. i have nothing further to add. >> thank you. >> i have nothing further. >> mr. sanchez, do you have anything to add? >> since the appellant brought it up again about the e.r.o., i believe the contact staff in our environmental planning section and they responded to him with the same thing that i said that this is out of the jurisdiction and it's their e.i.r. and they're responsible for implementing th

and san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval action on this document is requested at this time. the public review period for the proposed project draft eir began on may 21st, 2020 and continue through 5:00 p.m. on july 7th, 2020. i will now provide you with a brief overview of the project and a project variant both of which were analyzed in the draft eir. the project is comprised of 11,800 square foot parcel that fronts o'farrell street in the downtown civic center neighborhood. it is developed with one building, a public parking garage, which was constructed in 1924 and designed in the gothic revolve architecture style. the building is individually eligible for listing in the california register of historical resources under criterion three as a good example of this style of architecture. the existing building is also a contributing resource to the national register tenderloin historic district which is significant under a for association with the development of hotel and apartment life in san francisco during a cri

i'm very concerned with how this kind of misuse might be afforded by the new ceqa ordinance with themplemented and the result would be that even more projects would be made exempt from public review under ceqa. it was to enact anxiouses to document and to consider the environmental implications their actions, and the environmental review process that is involved in the process by which a public gave input to public agencies on projects and policies. by limiting the environmental reviews with the proposed ordinance to have a negative impact on transparency and public participation. of course we all hope that the past uses outlined in the article are not predictive of future problems. but i am concerned that the ordinance could cause more abuse of the public trust in the future. as you commissioners are aware, the ordinance will be reviewed on july 15th. i encourage you and the listening public to read the june 7th "chronicle" article and please reconsider and do not further weaken the ceqa process in san francisco. thank you very much. >> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: c

on the city itself in the inform of environmental impacts which has not been evaluated in a proper ceqa review. it's illegal for a number of additional reasons. the am oartization period is insufficient and the hearing process is vague. the building inspection commission is not empowered to hold them in the first place. they have certain powers and serving as a quasi judge is not one of those powers. the board of supervisors have the ability to grant that power as it was created about i a vote roinishivetive. we're talking about a judicial function. it discriminates between sro owners, hotel owners, and the owners of other uses. lastly, as we're discussing a land use category change, a rezoning, it needs to be referred to the planning commission. we submitted a letter to you detailing these objections and others. this ordinance is being pushed through at break neck speed. we would reflect as the previous caller did, previous time to review it, make comments on it more fully and to engage with your office. we urge you to please vote no on this proposal, thank you very much for your consi

it has a category that has no ceqa classification. this is not the proper forum to discuss the status of the property as mentioned by planning staff. not withstanding their attack on the resource classification, appellants have no credible evidence that counters the substantial evidence relied upon by the planning department in determining the property is not an historic resource. the planning commission analyzed whether the project is necessary and desirable, and compatible with the taraval street and they found that it is. in making the required conditional-use finding, the planning commission found the project to be consistent with the general plan. appellant appear to argue and oppose the project on behalf of the existing tenants of the single-family home. but as indicated in their letter submitted to the board, the tenants are supportive of the project, recognizing it tripled the number of dwelling units at the property while also providing a ground floor commercial space. they're not being evicted. while this is a small project

on the city itself in the inform of environmental impacts which has not been evaluated in a proper ceqa review. it's illegal for a number of additional reasons. the am oartization period is insufficient and the hearing process is vague. the building inspection commission is not empowered to hold them in the first place. they have certain powers and serving as a quasi judge is not one of those powers. the board of supervisors have the ability to grant that power as it was created about i a vote roinishivetive. we're talking about a judicial function. it discriminates between sro owners, hotel owners, and the owners of other uses. lastly, as we're discussing a land use category change, a rezoning, it needs to be referred to the planning commission. we submitted a letter to you detailing these objections and others. this ordinance is being pushed through at break neck speed. we would reflect as the previous caller did, previous time to review it, make comments on it more fully and to engage with your office. we urge you to please vote no on this proposal, thank you very much for your consi

sb-1085 would exclude ceqa review from local decisions.nd i have to point out that sb-10le 5 would set rent for students and low-income residents at 30% below market rate rent. this is not fair. please oppose. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. welcome, caller. you have up to two minutes. >> hi. my name is ross. i live in engelside and i work as an social creative director in san francisco and i'm calling to voice my support for item 28. dr. arragon. i've been tatooed by many of the folks that have called in and spoken prior and i would just like to point out, as a customer of san francisco tatoo shop, that they add something immeasurable to the city's [inaudible] and i also feel very, very safe because all the artists and employees of san francisco tatoo shops have undergone extensive blood-borne pathogen certification and cross contamination training and my heart really goes out to them. most of them have been completely out of work and without any income for three months plus now. if we could get those folk

to determine whether an environmental effect is significant, ceqa now calls for agencies to transitionm using thresholds that are based on what is known as levels of service at roadway intersections to what's based on the vehicles miles traveled methodology. next slide. environmental review, continued. staff recommends that the commission adopt v.m.t. standard for purposes of analyzing the warriors related 2020 actions as recommended by the state's technical guidance and as supplemented for vehicle impacts by the planning department's guidance. finally, staff recommends that the commission, consistent with the conclusion of addendum number one, fine that the environmental effects of the proposed 2020 actions are within the scope of the project analyzed in the event centre sfbir and will not result in any new, significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would alter the conclusions reached in the sfeir. next slide, community outreach. the proposed project in action were presented to the mission bay citizens advisory commi

the proposed action constitutes the approval action for the purposes of ceqa.e introduced by deputy c.f.o.s charles pearl. >> good afternoon. commissioners, charles pearl, deputy c.f.o. the proposal before you today is to increase the general municipal electrical rates by one cent per kilowatt hour each year over the next two years beginning july 1 of this year. as the commission secretary noted, the rate applies to certain city department and other discounted electric customers. the rate increase has been included in the city-wide five-year planning and is necessary to support the ongoing financial health of the hetchy power enterprise. enable it to continue reliably providing greenhouse gas-free power to its customers. the rate increase will provide the enterprise an estimated additional $3.5 million next year and fiscal '21 to pay for necessary planned operating and capital investments. the rate increase is supported by the city's required 2016 power cost of service study which recommended moving all of our customers, all of our power customers to closer and

sb-1085 would exclude ceqa review from local decisions.nd i have to point out that sb-10le 5 would set rent for students and low-income residents at 30% below market rate rent. this is not fair. please oppose. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. welcome, caller. you have up to two minutes. >> hi. my name is ross. i live in engelside and i work as an social creative director in san francisco and i'm calling to voice my support for item 28. dr. arragon. i've been tatooed by many of the folks that have called in and spoken prior and i would just like to point out, as a customer of san francisco tatoo shop, that they add something immeasurable to the city's [inaudible] and i also feel very, very safe because all the artists and employees of san francisco tatoo shops have undergone extensive blood-borne pathogen certification and cross contamination training and my heart really goes out to them. most of them have been completely out of work and without any income for three months plus now. if we could get those folk

there is the ceqa appeal that ms. mueller just mentioned. i also want to say 100% affordable project would lessen the problems of traffic and transit. president yee said that without solving the parking and transit and traffic problems, they could not go ahead. and i'm counting on him being -- relying -- >> thank you, caller, your two minutes has expired. queueing next caller. >> you have four questions remaining. hello. i'm jennifer. i'm concerned that the decisions are being made without adequate information. up can't evaluate the value of this project which moves our public land to private ownership. according to a.j.'s analysis which he send you, 87% of the $91.5 million costs through the develop areas 363 affordable units will actually be coming from the public. and if the public is paying for most of the affordable housing units, it makes more sense to build a balboa reservoir as 100% affordable housing. why would you approve a development that competes with city college's trying to put -- noise, air quality and transportation impacts

this is merely to provide it to the planning department so they can do a ceqa review on the project. >> any questions? any discussion on the topic? madam secretary, please open to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 11, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452, and pound, followed by pound again. dial one, and then zero, to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, we do have callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> operator: one question remaining. >> hello. as you know, i'm concerned about san francisco approval so much development while at the same time the state water board -- [inaudible] >> i'm also concerned about the jobs-housing imbalance -- [inaudible] >> project, which is jobs heavy. [inaudible] >> -- there will be a lot of pressure to build more housing which will take even more water. i encourage you to do two things. a breakdown between projected jobs and housing build, and projected water demand will be required as the city catches up on housing required by th

the ceqa must measure social, economic impacts to a community, specifically in the low-income areas. and specifically where most of the blue collared jobs are in the eastern side of the city. planning really needs to protect these jobs. definition of a cultural asset needs to be -- needs to limit the restrictive criteria that follows -- that doesn't really address low-income communities. the projection of industrial land use in d9 and d20, where most of the minority and women-owned subcontractors, prime minister services are locate -- professional services are located. and my last comment. planning staff in a community outreach needs to start with concept for the proposed change, rather than presenting a completed proposed change for approval. because the community is in the mission. thank you. >> operator: you have 13 questions remaining. >> hello, caller, are you prepared to submit your comment? let's go to the next caller. >> operator: you have 12 questions remain. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carlos. thank you, commissioners chan and johnson, for your cour

once on the ceqa case and the second of the appellant court when they said this is a taking and so we hope that you would vote no on this and send it back and send a message that especially at this time, we need to be working together. thank you. >> hello, caller, are you there. >> caller, if you are there, please unmute your phone. i'll take the next caller. hello caller, are you there? >> caller: yes. >> you have two minutes. >> caller: can you hear me? ok. well, my name is mannish patel and i'm a third generation hotelier. i want to speak about these ordinances, it's been 40 years, approximately, that we have been oppressed by our golf regulations placing the burden of public housing, mind you the key word is public housing, on private citizens and businesses. especially minority businesses. our hotel have been used as scape goats in the guys that are elect officials have been purporting for the past 40 years to protect the fallacy of housing the elderly, low income, and that is another fallacy. it's not low income, the extremely low income as one of the housing advocates had spoke

the proposed action constitutes the approval action for the purposes of ceqa. and this should be -- will be introduced by deputy c.f.o.s charles pearl. >> good afternoon. commissioners, charles pearl, deputy c.f.o. the proposal before you today is to increase the general municipal electrical rates by one cent per kilowatt hour each year over the next two years beginning july 1 of this year. as the commission secretary noted, the rate applies to certain city department and other discounted electric customers. the rate increase has been included in the city-wide five-year planning and is necessary to support the ongoing financial health of the hetchy power enterprise. enable it to continue reliably providing greenhouse gas-free power to its customers. the rate increase will provide the enterprise an estimated additional $3.5 million next year and fiscal '21 to pay for necessary planned operating and capital investments. the rate increase is supported by the city's required 2016 power cost of service study which recommended moving all of our customers, all of our

permit decisions and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> supervisor yee: supervisor haney. >> thank you president yee and colleagues, i want to thank mayor breed and thank all of the many organizations and leaders who are part of the safer and side coalition. these groups v been driving this movement over the years and have been on the frontlines where they're outreach efforts to community members most impacted by the drug overdose crisis in our city. this is a -- not a new issue here. this is the board of supervisors and there have been task forces working groups, committee hearings about safe-injection sites and the consensus has been this is something that san francisco must do as soon as we can. it will get drug use off of our streets and it will get people into treatment, care and service and most importantly it will save lives. this proposal for overdose prevention programs would extend the harm reduction strategies already in use in san francisco and reduce the health associated with drug use. san francisco has a strong and long history of creating innovative programs for acc

valuation with the planning department and environmental review of the proposed project as require by ceqa. and the question is the living room at chinatown is much needed for public thelt and and will provide economic development for community that's been hard hit and needs something new for way finding, for tourists and for residents alike. and please move forward and support this fiscally feasible project in portsmouth square. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i am a longtime resident of pedestrisan francisco, 40 years. i have heard from you today that we have had four resignations for corruption. it was not until the death of george floyd that we have had supervisors and our own mayor london breed speaking out acknowledging that they have been aware of social injustices within our own police department. i bring this up as an issue and the social injustices were known and this has been under your watch and under the watch of the mayor. i courage you to call for checks and balances and accountability within the and thank you. i yield my time. >> before i