in ceqa, 28.41 and ceqa guidelines section 1506.45 and 1500.32, a categorical exemption from ceqa may not be issued for any project that may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. in this regard, the department failed to assess the impacts of the historic resource immediately adjacent to the project, a known category a historic resource as previously identified with a group of six other carnegie libraries as an eligible san francisco landmark under article 10. the ceqa guidelines state, a project may not be categorically exempt from ceqa if it could cause impact to historic resources. the department granted the exemption in this case before even evaluating whether the project would have impacts on historic resource. additionally, when the planning commission chose to not take discretionary review on the project, they did not have all the information in front of them. due to a clerical error it was attached to the wrong package. they they did have access on the website, it is equally, if not more important that the decision-makers, those commission

ceqa review. it is required prior to any permitting decisions. we have filed an appeal with the board of supervisors. we haven't been scheduled for hearing yet but at the very least we believe this matter should be continued by the board of appeals until the board of supervisors determines whether ceqa review is required because ceqa must proceed any permitting decisions. next, in 2011 the zoning administrator issued a variance for this property. to the extent it was necessary to address any extraordinary circumstances, unusual circumstances, unnecessary hardships, preserves property rights that should all have been resolved in 2011. you shouldn't need to resolve it again a second time. we don't keep going in for variance after variance after variance to resolve a discrepancy that was already resolved. finally, the project does not meet the five variance factors. i have very limited time so of course necessary to meet all five and will point out the three most obvious. and the last factor is that

in ceqa, 28.41 and ceqa guidelines section 1506.45 and 1500.32, a categorical exemption from ceqa may not be issued for any project that may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. in this regard, the department failed to assess the impacts of the historic resource immediately adjacent to the project, a known category a historic resource as previously identified with a group of six other carnegie libraries as an eligible san francisco landmark under article 10. the ceqa guidelines state, a project may not be categorically exempt from ceqa if it could cause impact to historic resources. the department granted the exemption in this case before even evaluating whether the project would have impacts on historic resource. additionally, when the planning commission chose to not take discretionary review on the project, they did not have all the information in front of them. due to a clerical error it was attached to the wrong package. they they did have access on the website, it is equally, if not more important that the decision-makers, those commission

ceqa review. it is required prior to any permitting decisions. we have filed an appeal with the board of supervisors. we haven't been scheduled for hearing yet but at the very least we believe this matter should be continued by the board of appeals until the board of supervisors determines whether ceqa review is required because ceqa must proceed any permitting decisions. next, in 2011 the zoning administrator issued a variance for this property. to the extent it was necessary to address any extraordinary circumstances, unusual circumstances, unnecessary hardships, preserves property rights that should all have been resolved in 2011. you shouldn't need to resolve it again a second time. we don't keep going in for variance after variance after variance to resolve a discrepancy that was already resolved. finally, the project does not meet the five variance factors. i have very limited time so of course necessary to meet all five and will point out the three most obvious. and the last factor is that

in the appeal there's ceqa guidelines and case law examples, including where ceqa places the burden ofnvironmental investigation on the government rather than the public. it also states that lead agencies shall consider these held by members of the public in all areas affected. as clearly laid out, it is in conflict with the core elements of the mission-area plan and the general plan and should not go forward until the city and the project are approved. (please stand by) >> -- including the artists, the t.d.r. small business owners, and the people of color. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> hi. my name is gary gregorson. i'm the president of the red stone temple labor association. we're the labor association in the historic red stone building at 16 and capp. we are a p.d.r. building, and i just want to speak in support of the appeal. i agree with all the points everyone has brought it up -- brought up so far. i just want to say, we're one of the last community serving buildings in the commission, and a lot of organizations that have already been

given that there is a pending ceqa appeal. supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> president yee: and before you do close it up let me -- >> of course, mr. president. >> thank you, chair. i just wanted to say from the perspective of the neighboring supervisor, this particular project straddles both districts. it's clearly in district 7 and i just want to give a special recognition to president yee for all of his hard work and leadership on this, to jen lowe on his staff. and i know that the president will be thanking his staff but i just want to thank her for her constant communication with our office. bridge housing and mission housing and avalon and the planning department of the economic and workforce development, and very importantly the leaders and residents of district 11 that reached out to our office and were involved in the process, many of whom spoke tonight. this is not an easy endeavor and i think that president yee will tell you that district 11 and district 7 have not had family affordable housing built on any t

or met the ceqa guidelines or not applicable. as previously mentioned, the study of a smaller density project with 500 units were analyzed as part of the balboa station area plan in 2009, and the e.i.r. does not need to consider every possible alternative to a project but just a recently range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. so while the appellant would have liked to have seen 100% affordable units, it would not have significantly changed the c conclusions from the initial study as there are still unavoidable impacts. there is no conclusions you can build just on the 100% affordable rate. city college has their own e.i.r. process that has to identify cumulative impacts. and on the issue of parking, the loss of parking is not something that ceqa evaluates as a significant impact. i know that that is frustrating to the members of the public and sometimes even myself as a board member, but we have to look at the issues with impartiality. lastly, covid-19 has ch

or met the ceqa guidelines or not applicable. as previously mentioned, the study of a smaller density project with 500 units were analyzed as part of the balboa station area plan in 2009, and the e.i.r. does not need to consider every possible alternative to a project but just a recently range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. so while the appellant would have liked to have seen 100% affordable units, it would not have significantly changed the c conclusions from the initial study as there are still unavoidable impacts. there is no conclusions you can build just on the 100% affordable rate. city college has their own e.i.r. process that has to identify cumulative impacts. and on the issue of parking, the loss of parking is not something that ceqa evaluates as a significant impact. i know that that is frustrating to the members of the public and sometimes even myself as a board member, but we have to look at the issues with impartiality. lastly, covid-19 has ch

given that there is a pending ceqa appeal. supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> president yee: and before you do close it up let me -- >> of course, mr. president. >> thank you, chair. i just wanted to say from the perspective of the neighboring supervisor, this particular project straddles both districts. it's clearly in district 7 and i just want to give a special recognition to president yee for all of his hard work and leadership on this, to jen lowe on his staff. and i know that the president will be thanking his staff but i just want to thank her for her constant communication with our office. bridge housing and mission housing and avalon and the planning department of the economic and workforce development, and very importantly the leaders and residents of district 11 that reached out to our office and were involved in the process, many of whom spoke tonight. this is not an easy endeavor and i think that president yee will tell you that district 11 and district 7 have not had family affordable housing built on any t

given that there is a pending ceqa appeal. supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> president yee: and before you do close it up let me -- >> of course, mr. president. >> thank you, chair. i just wanted to say from the perspective of the neighboring supervisor, this particular project straddles both districts. it's clearly in district 7 and i just want to give a special recognition to president yee for all of his hard work and leadership on this, to jen lowe on his staff. and i know that the president will be thanking his staff but i just want to thank her for her constant communication with our office. bridge housing and mission housing and avalon and the planning department of the economic and workforce development, and very importantly the leaders and residents of district 11 that reached out to our office and were involved in the process, many of whom spoke tonight. this is not an easy endeavor and i think that president yee will tell you that district 11 and district 7 have not had family affordable housing built on any t

other than the appeal of the ceqa? thank you. >> clerk: i have his e-mail.ou can provide his comments. >> there are no other calls in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 6b is now closed. next item is 6c the clean power integrated resource plan present clean power sf director mike hynes. >> i'm the director for the enterprise. i'm sorry i am having wi-fi issues and doesn't want to let me connect so you're stuck with my voice only. i will have some assistance walking through the slides. i'm here to provide an update on the resource planning process we have underway. this is on slide two. clean rsf is required -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, to stop you but the slides aren't quite up yet. we're on slide integrated resource planning. >> apologize. thank you for being hi -- my eyes. >> it's required to submit an irp to the public utilities commission california commission every two years and in process of develop ting the irp. we'll submit it to the california p.u.c. to project the electricity demand to 2030 and identify a portfolio of electricity resources that

where the ceqa iir mentioned something about retail space. and somehow it's put into this ordinance as a possibility of 7500 square feet -- which is not a lot, but i also said that the developers and because the community, we don't compete with ocean avenue businesses. we are totally committed to that. so i want to delete that language that is in the ordinance that states that possibility. and that would be on page 3, line 8. and basically it is a few words, so we're clear there wouldn't be any retail space there. what i wanted deleted was approximately 7500 square feet of neighborhood survey retail space. okay? >> supervisor fewer: great. okay. so, colleagues, because this is due to ceqa filed for the project, we can make a motion to the full board without recommendation. but first, i would like to make a motion to accept the recommendations from the b.l.a. could i have a roll call vote, please? >> clerk: yes, on the motion, supervisor walton? walton aye. mandelman aye. fewer aye. three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: then i'd like to vote to acc

staff will carefully review the board's findings once drafted to see how the decision impacts their ceqa review going forward and impact on the project itself. thank you for your time. that concludes my report and commissioner johnson i am going to miss you terribly and wish you the best of luck. thank you. >> that leads us to public comment. >> caller: i want to propose some things you could be advocating for. you could be advocating for a category of housing but not actually housing. there's a category that you can create non existing housing and being held for investment and should to be for inventory and you should be advocating toe -- to secure sites for affordable housing. we're losing sites where affordable housing could be built because of market rate housing. thank you. >> caller: i'm sorry commissioner johnson's leading and i wish you the best of luck and take good care. i'm calling because i want to reiterate something about the reason for section 817 the numerical articulation. the point was to preserve housing and maintain financial accessibility but allow for alterations th

evaded the requirement to obtain a proper permit for residential building demolition, and that the ceqa is flawed because it relied on an unstable building description, and lastly, that the roof deck represents a significant lot of privacy. the proposed alternatives are to limit the footprint of the new and existing building, and to limit the roof deck. the second d.r. requester is concerned that the proposed design is a demolition that is inconsistent with san francisco's requirement to preserve current housing stock, and violates the requirement that all demolitions after december 31, 2011 lists ceqa impacted. their proposal is to deny the demolition and eliminate the roof deck. to date, the department has received 17 letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. this does not require a conditional use authorization. the existing house was appraised above the threshold for demonstrable affordablity, which is $2.2 million at this time, and a complete application was submitted well before the regulation change on february 11, 2020. the one-story massing at the rear ext

kleeman, i'm no ceqa expert. my understanding is that this is a programatic eir, and we are a responsible agency; is that correct? >> right. so does that -- so the eir -- what i was reading last night indicated that comments from the public, and presumably, you know, obviously we're not the public, would not be forwarded -- comments from the public from today would not be forwarded formally as part of the comments that would be addressed in the response to comments. i just want to make sure that our comments today would be. >> yes, they will be. i will draft up a letter and summarize your comments. i will submit it to commissioner hyland for review, and then once that's finalized, it will be transmitted. >> i am confident that between the two of you, you will get it right, so thank you. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i did want to make one comment, because we are kind of avoiding the buildings, and i think that's probably just brought up by commissioner johns that we don't seem to have any interest in the particula

that's not a good thing and is also a ceqa impact. basically, what we're saying here is the city's policies have failed. you need to insist that failed policies be replaced by better ones. we a only by rejecting this e.i.r. can the board address the failure of its existing policies. thank you. >> president yee: okay. thank you for your presentation. i don't see anybody else on the roster, so i'll go ahead and move to public comments on those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. madam clerk, would you check if there are any callers in the queue. >> clerk: yes. operations, do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: yes, madam clerk, we have 19 callers in the queue. >> clerk: hello. we welcome your comments on this item. hello to the first caller. hello, caller. welcome. operations, maybe you'll try the next caller. we'll circle back to that first caller. hello, caller. welcome. >> hi. hi. i'm appellant alvin jacques. i've sent you a lot of materials regarding the e.i.r., and i hope you have looked at them objectively

that's not a good thing and is also a ceqa impact. basically, what we're saying here is the city's policies have failed. you need to insist that failed policies be replaced by better ones. we a only by rejecting this e.i.r. can the board address the failure of its existing policies. thank you. >> president yee: okay. thank you for your presentation. i don't see anybody else on the roster, so i'll go ahead and move to public comments on those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. madam clerk, would you check if there are any callers in the queue. >> clerk: yes. operations, do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: yes, madam clerk, we have 19 callers in the queue. >> clerk: hello. we welcome your comments on this item. hello to the first caller. hello, caller. welcome. operations, maybe you'll try the next caller. we'll circle back to that first caller. hello, caller. welcome. >> hi. hi. i'm appellant alvin jacques. i've sent you a lot of materials regarding the e.i.r., and i hope you have looked at them objectively

kleeman, i'm no ceqa expert. my understanding is that this is a programatic eir, and we are a responsible agency; is that correct? >> right. so does that -- so the eir -- what i was reading last night indicated that comments from the public, and presumably, you know, obviously we're not the public, would not be forwarded -- comments from the public from today would not be forwarded formally as part of the comments that would be addressed in the response to comments. i just want to make sure that our comments today would be. >> yes, they will be. i will draft up a letter and summarize your comments. i will submit it to commissioner hyland for review, and then once that's finalized, it will be transmitted. >> i am confident that between the two of you, you will get it right, so thank you. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i did want to make one comment, because we are kind of avoiding the buildings, and i think that's probably just brought up by commissioner johns that we don't seem to have any interest in the particula

and the action will likely result of more ceqa appeals or options tying up more agency and planning departmentresources to contest. i hope there is another way to address my underlying concerns in my opinion forcing transit riders to transfer unnecessarily from one vehicle to another and expose them to the possibility of contacting or transmitting the covid-19 virus in turn exposing the agency to further legal and financial risk. thank you. . [please stand by] >> thank you. next speaker please. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> thank you this is gary toronto. i want to applauds directo applr his presentation. they are going to create more space for these pop up flea markets going up on sixth street. the first thing they need to do is allow people to walk uunimpeded along sixth street. next vi to sa i have to say a gb was done on jones street. i don't know about turk street. it ought to be left alone unless you want to divert more cars. i'm try to go make the suggestion for slow streets. they used to be one way streets. revert back to one way streets for only one lane. that way you have

new information that i would like everyone involved to have, more time to review in advance of the ceqa hearing. additionally the neighbors ask to meet with the project sponsor. i want to afford them the opportunity to do that. i want to appreciate all the staff time involved and would now like to make a motion to continue this hearing to the regular schedule board meeting on tuesday, september 15th, 2020. can i have a second? >> supervisor peskin: second. >> supervisor yee: before we take the motion, let's take a public comment on the continuance. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the anticipated continuance? >> clerk: i understand there's one person in the queue mr. president. there are 16 listeners. if any of those listeners interested in lining up, please press star three now. let's hear from the first caller. hello caller. are you on the line? i hear something vaguely in the background. it's certain to me if it's a caller . is there any way to boost the public caller's sound? >> i believe that is the caller's audio in the background with the tv. >> clerk: cal

other than the appeal of the ceqa? thank you. >> clerk: i have his e-mail. you can provide his comments. >> there are no other calls in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 6b is now closed. next item is 6c the clean power integrated resource plan present clean power sf director mike hynes. >> i'm the director for the enterprise. i'm sorry i am having wi-fi issues and doesn't want to let me connect so you're stuck with my voice only. i will have some assistance walking through the slides. i'm here to provide an update on the resource planning process we have underway. this is on slide two. clean rsf is required -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, to stop you but the slides aren't quite up yet. we're on slide integrated resource planning. >> apologize. thank you for being hi -- my eyes. >> it's required to submit an irp to the public utilities commission california commission every two years and in process of develop ting the irp. we'll submit it to the california p.u.c. to project the electricity demand to 2030 and identify a portfolio of electricity resources th

other than the appeal of the ceqa? thank you. >> clerk: i have his e-mail. you can provide his comments. >> there are no other calls in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 6b is now closed. next item is 6c the clean power integrated resource plan present clean power sf director mike hynes. >> i'm the director for the enterprise. i'm sorry i am having wi-fi issues and doesn't want to let me connect so you're stuck with my voice only. i will have some assistance walking through the slides. i'm here to provide an update on the resource planning process we have underway. this is on slide two. clean rsf is required -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, to stop you but the slides aren't quite up yet. we're on slide integrated resource planning. >> apologize. thank you for being hi -- my eyes. >> it's required to submit an irp to the public utilities commission california commission every two years and in process of develop ting the irp. we'll submit it to the california p.u.c. to project the electricity demand to 2030 and identify a portfolio of electricity resources th

bill 288 from senator wiener, from which we currently have a watch position, which has to do with ceqa reform, passed out of legislation next week. there would also be -- they've added certain requirements for public meetings before and during construction and established a sunset date of january 2023. so those are some updates on that bill. we are also following a budget trailer bill, sb 815, which would allow for gas tax funds that are currently direct via formula to transit agencies to be used for transit operations. these are normally used for state of good repair maintenance capital projects, but the state is allowing through this bill to allow for transit operations to use them to avoid cuts in service. so it's the regulation that allows federal funds to be used that we talked about last month. so we will provide an update on those of these as well as other bills on the september 15 meeting as well as a federal update that includes updates on representative ayanna pressley's freedom to move acts. acts are due for bicycle and pedestrians projects, including a $220 million statewid

department's comments that this is a historical district with a historic view and so we agreed during the ceqa process to have a green coating applied to the fence. >> commissioner: does that mean we can or cannot see through the fence? >> you still will be able to see through it. >> commissioner: we were concerned about that. >> we preserved the view more or less while maintaining the security. >> commissioner: good. i'm happy that's moving forward. any other comments? questions? thank you very much for the presentation. >> my pleasure. >> commissioner: madame secretary, could you please open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the comment who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 6c dial 1-415-655-0001 meeting i.d. 146 136 9319 #, #, star 3 to raise your hand to speak. mr. moderator do we have any callers? >> none at this time. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 6c is now closed. the next item is 6d the water system improvement program quarterly reports for the third and fourth quarter also presented by ms. miller. >> good afternoon again, madame president a

bill 288 from senator wiener, from which we currently have a watch position, which has to do with ceqa reform, passed out of legislation next week. there would also be -- they've added certain requirements for public meetings before and during construction and established a sunset date of january 2023. so those are some updates on that bill. we are also following a budget trailer bill, sb 815, which would allow for gas tax funds that are currently direct via formula to transit agencies to be used for transit operations. these are normally used for state of good repair maintenance capital projects, but the state is allowing through this bill to allow for transit operations to use them to avoid cuts in service. so it's the regulation that allows federal funds to be used that we talked about last month. so we will provide an update on those of these as well as other bills on the september 15 meeting as well as a federal update that includes updates on representative ayanna pressley's freedom to move acts. acts are due for bicycle and pedestrians projects, including a $220 million statewid

new information that i would like everyone involved to have, more time to review in advance of the ceqa hearing. additionally the neighbors ask to meet with the project sponsor. i want to afford them the opportunity to do that. i want to appreciate all the staff time involved and would now like to make a motion to continue this hearing to the regular schedule board meeting on tuesday, september 15th, 2020. can i have a second? >> supervisor peskin: second. >> supervisor yee: before we take the motion, let's take a public comment on the continuance. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the anticipated continuance? >> clerk: i understand there's one person in the queue mr. president. there are 16 listeners. if any of those listeners interested in lining up, please press star three now. let's hear from the first caller. hello caller. are you on the line? i hear something vaguely in the background. it's certain to me if it's a caller . is there any way to boost the public caller's sound? >> i believe that is the caller's audio in the background with the tv. >> clerk: cal

new opportunities for affordable housing our offices involved in that and doing the contracting and ceqa and every step along the way so our office does that and we defeated the lawsuit that sought to stop the embarcadero navigation center. and again, i want to add one more thing, coming this monday, august 17th, the city will receive a check for $37.6 million from academy of art university. that arises out of our lawsuit what we allege was unlawful use of our buildings without proper planning codes and that $37.6 million is to be used exclusively for affordable housing so things like that that really we do think our office in an outward-facing measure really works on helping vulnerable communities. i want to say one more -- i want to say one more thing that we did that sort of really gets at sort of some of the -- our office really took on the (inaudible) over the public records related to police records. very progressive, they said maybe we can't get out all these records. our office took the position it's a law change and we have to get those out. again, we took that to court and won.