the ceqa determinations were upheld as they had been for the other ceqa appeals that had been filed. some of the same individuals have been regularly behind all of our appeals. i'm not sure i answered all the questions or -- the 50 signatures. that was established in in the context of setting out the board of supervisors ability to review certain approvals done by the mta board. the charter has authorized the board of supervisors to take review of certain mta board approvals, that was established about 12 years ago, it was only a couple years ago, the board of supervisors acted to set that up. what they set up for that was that -- what would trigger such review would either be the 50 signatures or several supervisors signing on to it. with the intention that this was meant to bring to the board of supervisors attention. they were broader concern and impact than one individual. that's the precedent for this specific numbers that are in this ordinance. tieing it to that overall structure in 2017. >> thank you for the detail. i have a little difficult time of the exact extent of frizz l

start with we just heard from a public comment from francisco de costa regarding questions around ceqa. i saw in the presentation there were some kays you mediated some of the issues. did you have comments or could you provide answers to those questions around air quality. >> thank you for that question, commissioner brackett. the site analysis work that the school district did, they ran air quality monitoring studies and a lot of the work or conclusions out of that helped to shape where the building was placed on the site. they are currently undergoing the technical studies for environmental review process. i don't know if sarah price has anything to share on that. >> i guess in the presentation they referenced the building was there to kind of prevent the noise. they didn't say anything about air quality. was there an air quality report submitted for this site? what was the finding? >> thank you for the question. kristin would you like this question or should i go ahead. >> thank you. i was going to start by letting the commissioners and public know when it comes to safety and childr

and addquately described for the purposes of the california environmental quality act or ceqa and addadopting environmental review findings pursuant to ceqa, mission bay south redevelopment project area resolution 67-2021. >> thank you. commissioners continuing in the mission bay theme for today's meeting. the next two items are to approve the design for the affordable home ownership project of block 9a. as you heard the design requires amendment to the mission bay control. we will be joined by therepresek nine team. >> good afternoon. i am annie development specialist with the housing team at ocii. very excited to present on this today. block 9a is one of the last remaining parcels in mission bay. when completed one of two 100% affordable home ownership projects in mission bay. other one is mission north in 2005. the twospection actions today are first amendment as you heard to the mission bay south design for development documents related to 9 a. the second is approval of associated major phase amendments. here is a map of the site location. you can see block 9 a identified in the r

under ceqa guidelines, this range of alternatives need to be explored. as well as avoid -- [indiscernible] effects. as a reminder this not require approval, but is an opportunity to provide input on the alternative -- the project sponsor and planning department have identified one full preservation alternatives and two partial. table that highlights some of the key fixtures of the alternative of this project. so the project development is developed 201 on site and the full preservation alternative would construct 115 units of housing. partial preservation alternative 2b would construct 181 units. full preservation alternatives -- [indiscernible] 1101 sutter street would remain and be rehabilitated similar to what it is in the proposed project. the two-story addition would be constructed with a 25-foot setback. a 200 foot tower would be constructed. the tower in the addition over 1123 sutter would be similar to part of the tower that features a panel-like -- with alternae existing panels. 115 residential units would be constructed. 14 in 1101 sutter. 16 i

and ceqa review and they requested an alternative be included in the i.r.addresses the concerns we laid out. i also want to mention prop h which allows for permits for be reviewed and acted on by the city in 30 days that includes our review. we've started implementation of prop 8 and some businesses that qualify can apply for a permit. qualify can apply for a permit. qualify can apply for a permit. thanks to our staff and across agencies would put this together and got it up and running. that concludes my report. >> item 6, review of past events at the board of supervisors and board of appeals historic preservation commission -- did you have a question? >> the arena allocation you were speaking about. we still have the amount of time of housing units but seals to be maybe shuffling will get different affordability is that correct? different income levels may be allocated to us? >> from the summer draft of plan bay area to the december draft are allocations for about 70,000 units and that's a factor but not the only factor in the arena methodology. because o

and beginning that today and completing by the fall of 2021 which allows us to begin the ceqa process later this year with a goal of securing all necessary approvals by mid 2023 and to begin construction in the fall of 2023. next slide, please. so, the next steps are should you approve the e.n.a., continue and the stakeholder outreach, begin the regulatory partner coordination. continue on with term sheet negotiations. and come back to the port commission and provide updates and seek guidance as required. with that, the port team and san francisco waterfront partners are available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, david. commissioners, motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> let's open the public comment for item 11-a for members of the public who are join us on the phone. jennifer will be our operator and will provide instructions now. for anyone on the phone who would like to provide public comment. >> thank you, president brandon. we will now open the queue for anyone on the phone who would like to make public comments on item 11-a. please dial star 3 if you wish to

and the adoption of the findings for ceqa. additionally, on page 11 of the draft motion for approval there was one slight error. noting that 19% of the total dwelling units in the project would be affordable and the department would like to clarify that is 19% of the base project units. for a total of about 13.9% of the total dwelling units. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. the project sponsor also has a presentation for the commission. >> clerk: thank you, mr. christianson. the project sponsor, you have five minutes. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. and it appears as though mr. christianson is pulling your presentation slides up now. so i'll give you a moment to gather your thoughts while he does that. >> thank you. >> the slides should be displayed now. are they shown? >> clerk: all i see is your folder, michael. >> do you see the slides now? >> clerk: we do now, so project sponsor your five minutes is starting now. >> thank yo

that it was a finding not made by ceqa, so it's a determination that the finding was made by planning and not the board. >> chair haney: great. makes sense. i want to move those amendments. can we have a roll call vote on the amendment? >> clerk: yes. on the motion to amend item 15 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: and those amendments pass, and can i now have -- can we move this item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation? roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to recommendation item number 15 to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great, thank you. >> clerk: excuse me, mr. chair, could we please take action on item number 14? >> chair haney: oh, yes. for item number 14, i want to move that to the full board with a positive recommendation, as well. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. so 14 and 15 will go to the full board with a positive recommendation

and ceqa review and they requested an alternative be included in the i.r. that addresses the concerns we laid out. i also want to mention prop h which allows for permits for be reviewed and acted on by the city in 30 days that includes our review. we've started implementation of prop 8 and some businesses that qualify can apply for a permit. qualify can apply for a permit. qualify can apply for a permit. thanks to our staff and across agencies would put this together and got it up and running. that concludes my report. >> item 6, review of past events at the board of supervisors and board of appeals historic preservation commission -- did you have a question? >> the arena allocation you were speaking about. we still have the amount of time of housing units but seals to be maybe shuffling will get different affordability is that correct? different income levels may be allocated to us? >> from the summer draft of plan bay area to the december draft are allocations for about 70,000 units and that's a factor but not the only factor in the arena methodology. bec

and complete the ceqa and all others. next slide. within the e.n.a. there were primary issues that we negotiated, including the diversity, equity and inclusion. and the term and the kansz laigz period that we -- cancellation period that we have developed. and a transfer time frame. and the strada t.t.c. are not subject to l. e. during the e.n.a. so we need to set goals for this during the e.n.a. period to have the maximum equity inclusion and look to the race equity plan for guidance on how to set those goals. the terms set for this is about 4.5 years which matches the benchmarks identified with both strada and t.t.c. and the port agreed as this as appropriate with the complexities, reaching the regulatory alignment and getting through the community outreach process. and we've identified a need for initial consultation period to conduct more outreach with the regulatory partners to determine approaches to seek regulatory alignment. this is a four-month period. at the end of the four-month period, strada t.t.c. could terminate the e.n.a. without penalt

under ceqa guidelines, this range of alternatives need to be explored. as well as avoid -- [indiscernible] effects. as a reminder this not require approval, but is an opportunity to provide input on the alternative -- the project sponsor and planning department have identified one full preservation alternatives and two partial. table that highlights some of the key fixtures of the alternative of this project. so the project development is developed 201 on site and the full preservation alternative would construct 115 units of housing. partial preservation alternative 2b would construct 181 units. full preservation alternatives -- [indiscernible] 1101 sutter street would remain and be rehabilitated similar to what it is in the proposed project. the two-story addition would be constructed with a 25-foot setback. a 200 foot tower would be constructed. the tower in the addition over 1123 sutter would be similar to part of the tower that features a panel-like -- with alternae existing panels. 115 residential units would be constructed. 14 in 1101 sutter. 16 i

you know, specifically because we don't have ceqa we can't come to you asking to construct yet. so we're asking you for additional planning and design money right now, but the intent would be to come back as soon as we have ceqa to have you to authorize the construction, for in many cases it's the placement of gravel. to your final question i guess about flows, these projects are intended to be activated under the current flow schedule. so they don't require additional flow at the moment. of course, the additional flows as we move forward with the ferc license and the amended finalized application, those flows were paired with these kinds of restoration projects. so that they could be activated and be more responsive and productive. but i think that the projects that we'll be looking at are really intended to take advantage of the flows that are there now. and as i said, some of these projects have already gone through some stages of design with the flow schedule that we have today. >> vice-president moran: okay, thank you. the commission has been on record for -- seems like a c

that it was a finding not made by ceqa, so it's a determination that the finding was made by planning and not the board. >> chair haney: great. makes sense. i want to move those amendments. can we have a roll call vote on the amendment? >> clerk: yes. on the motion to amend item 15 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: and those amendments pass, and can i now have -- can we move this item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation? roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to recommendation item number 15 to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great, thank you. >> clerk: excuse me, mr. chair, could we please take action on item number 14? >> chair haney: oh, yes. for item number 14, i want to move that to the full board with a positive recommendation, as well. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. so 14 and 15 will go to the full board with a positive recommendation

under ceqa guidelines, this range of alternatives need to be explored. [indiscernible] effects. as a reminder this not require approval, but is an opportunity to provide input on the alternative -- the project sponsor and planning department have identified one full preservation alternatives and two partial. table that highlights some of the key fixtures of the alternative of this project. so the project development is developed 201 on site and the full preservation alternative would construct 115 units of housing. partial preservation alternative 2b would construct 181 units. full preservation alternatives -- [indiscernible] 1101 sutter street would remain and be rehabilitated similar to what it is in the proposed project. the two-story addition would be constructed with a 25-foot setback. a 200 foot tower would be constructed. the tower in the addition over 1123 sutter would be similar to part of the tower that features a panel-like -- with alternae existing panels. 115 residential units would be constructed. 14 in 1101 sutter. 16 in 1123. and 75 in th

be used for permanent supportive housing purposes without abandoning the hotel use and affirm the ceqa determination to make the appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, president walton. i think i understand what this is but i am not totally sure -- i mean, i know that pursue apartment to the charter if any member of this board or that board or the mayor would like to introduce legislation amending the planning code and the planning commission has 90 days to hear that matter and recommend amendments or recommend denial or recommend approval and when that 90 day period lapses, over the time within that 90 day period the matter is under the jurisdiction the board of supervisors that by majority of vote can take that advice and ignore that advice, whatever. the board of supervisors can by resolution and i think item 22 is this resolution extend that time and not have jurisdiction over the actual ordinance and from time to time, supervisors will in a dialogue with the planning department extend that by 30 or 60 or 90 days and i don't recall ceiling a mayoral item ex tenne

and complete the ceqa and all others. next slide. within the e.n.a. there were primary issues that we negotiated, including the diversity, equity and inclusion. and the term and the kansz laigz period that we -- cancellation period that we have developed. and a transfer time frame. and the strada t.t.c. are not subject to l. e. during the e.n.a. so we need to set goals for this during the e.n.a. period to have the maximum equity inclusion and look to the race equity plan for guidance on how to set those goals. the terms set for this is about 4.5 years which matches the benchmarks identified with both strada and t.t.c. and the port agreed as this as appropriate with the complexities, reaching the regulatory alignment and getting through the community outreach process. and we've identified a need for initial consultation period to conduct more outreach with the regulatory partners to determine approaches to seek regulatory alignment. this is a four-month period. at the end of the four-month period, strada t.t.c. could terminate the e.n.a. without penalt

administration for services to commission a ground-based augmentation system at the airport and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> president for a significant amount of time. and then lastly, the light rail vehicles, one of the things that we talk about in the budget and finance committee that i wanted to get op to the record, the purchase of those vehicles were done with today's specifications, not last year, but the previous times. the mistakes that didn't include the proper braking systems, didn't include the proper door-closing systems and that -- that labor was consulted on this. and that they require the process to support this restructuring and this issuance of debt. so that gave me the assurances that i would be supporting this today. and i just wanted to get that on the record. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. madam clerk, do we have a representative from m.t.a. here this afternoon? >> clerk: i believe we do. >> mr. president, if i may respectfully interject, insofar as mr. safai starting his words by suggesting that he wanted to defer his comm

require the department of building inspection to annually report on such waivers and too affirm the ceqa>> 5. appropriate $165,000 from the general reserve in the department of building inspection to provide accessory dwelling unit permit services in fiscal year 2020-2021. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> mr. president. >> we are not voting yet we can hear from supervisor mar. >> thank you, president walton. colleagues. i want to move that we continue these two items to the march 2nd meeting of the board of supervisors. i just recently had a conversation with supervisor peskin and he had questions and suggested an amendment. at the 11th hour but i think good questions and good suggestion. i would like a little more time to discuss this with supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor mar. is that a motion? >> i move that we continue both of these items to the march 2 and meeting of the board of supervisors. >> thank you. is there a second? >> second peskin. >> thank you. >> i do want to thank supervisor mar and apologize for my 11th hour policy motion. it is a longstanding motion that st

be used for permanent supportive housing purposes without abandoning the hotel use and affirm the ceqa determination to make the appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, president walton. i think i understand what this is but i am not totally sure -- i mean, i know that pursue apartment to the charter if any member of this board or that board or the mayor would like to introduce legislation amending the planning code and the planning commission has 90 days to hear that matter and recommend amendments or recommend denial or recommend approval and when that 90 day period lapses, over the time within that 90 day period the matter is under the jurisdiction the board of supervisors that by majority of vote can take that advice and ignore that advice, whatever. the board of supervisors can by resolution and i think item 22 is this resolution extend that time and not have jurisdiction over the actual ordinance and from time to time, supervisors will in a dialogue with the planning department extend that by 30 or 60 or 90 days and i don't recall ceiling a mayoral item ex tenne

require the department of building inspection to annually report on such waivers and too affirm the ceqa determination. >> 5. appropriate $165,000 from the general reserve in the department of building inspection to provide accessory dwelling unit permit services in fiscal year 2020-2021. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> mr. president. >> we are not voting yet we can hear from supervisor mar. >> thank you, president walton. colleagues. i want to move that we continue these two items to the march 2nd meeting of the board of supervisors. i just recently had a conversation with supervisor peskin and he had questions and suggested an amendment. at the 11th hour but i think good questions and good suggestion. i would like a little more time to discuss this with supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor mar. is that a motion? >> i move that we continue both of these items to the march 2 and meeting of the board of supervisors. >> thank you. is there a second? >> second peskin. >> thank you. >> i do want to thank supervisor mar and apologize for my 11th hour policy motion. it is a longstandin

but i might suggest that adam noble who prepared the shadow study for the project in the ceqa document-- >> and the yellow means what compared to the red? and what i would call the minimus shadow. >> this is adam noble. commissioner, can you hear me? >> i am not a commissioner. i am a supervisor. >> supervisor, i'm sorry. my first time. >> who are you, mr. noble? >> thank you. this is a graphic that was produced in my office. and the red color indication is less important than the blue part of the building which is the proposed building penetrating the shadow envelope which is colored. and once you penetrate that vertically you create shadow and union square and willy wuwu. >> supervisor: wait, so the blue is the offender or the red is the offend sner help me out. >> the blue is the proposed building. when that pokes through the red area there, that means that element, that masking element will create a net new shadow on one of the open spaces in question. >> supervisor: and the colors that we are supposed to ignore, mr. noble, of red, yellow, aened green mean what? >> we use those int

administration for services to commission a ground-based augmentation system at the airport and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> president for a significant amount of time. and then lastly the light rail vehicles, one of the things that we talk about in the budget and finance committee that i wanted to get op to the record, the purchase of those vehicles were done with today's specifications, not last year but the previous times. the mistakes that didn't include the proper braking systems, didn't include the proper door-closing systems and that -- that labor was consulted on this. and that they require the process to support this restructuring and this issuance of debt. so that gave me the assurances that i would be supporting this today. and i just wanted to get that on the record. thank you mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. madam clerk do we have a representative from m.t.a. here this afternoon? >> clerk: i believe we do. >> mr. president if i may respectfully interject, insofar as mr. safai starting his words by suggesting that he wanted to defer his comments.