to abuse ceqa. please support the sb37 resolution. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi all. good afternoon supervisors. here today for the land use transportation committee. my name is dr. heidi redow and i'm calling on behalf of a larger coalition. i'm also a resident of district 4 and i'm a mom. while the future of the great highway or better known the great walkway is not on the agenda. i wanted to instruct comment. the board of supervisors approached a decision point in the coming weeks for keeping the great walkway. >> clerk: madam, we have to stick -- we have to keep your comments to the items on the agenda. unfortunately, general public comment is not taken on at committee. so if you can redirect your comments to item number 2, to the california state bill, otherwise, we can take your comments tomorrow at the board meeting. >> thanks. yeah. we'll be sharing a petition of over 5,000 signatures then. thanks so much. >> clerk: thank you so much. >> [inaudible] >> clerk: h

ceqa reform is necessary. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is janice lee and i'm here on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. obviously, there are a lot of feelings getting brought up. i think supervisor haney has said probably everything i would have wanted him to say. and we believe at the bike coalition that this legislation does this. as you heard, the planning commission has unanimously recommended approval of this legislation. the idea that this would erode ceqa, you can't have it both ways. opponents of this legislation have in the same breath said that appeals don't happen this often and a ceqa appeal at 6,$500 a pop to file. these appeals are filed by the white vote with privilege. created significant changes to the way san francisco impacts are measured. san francisco immediately moved forward with those changes and began to use vehicle mile travel and sb17 in july 2020. still requires environmental review documentation. around the same t

ceqa reform is necessary. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is janice lee and i'm here on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. obviously, there are a lot of feelings getting brought up. i think supervisor haney has said probably everything i would have wanted him to say. and we believe at the bike coalition that this legislation does this. as you heard, the planning commission has unanimously recommended approval of this legislation. the idea that this would erode ceqa, you can't have it both ways. opponents of this legislation have in the same breath said that appeals don't happen this often and a ceqa appeal at 6,$500 a pop to file. these appeals are filed by the white vote with privilege. created significant changes to the way san francisco impacts are measured. san francisco immediately moved forward with those changes and began to use vehicle mile travel and sb17 in july 2020. still requires environmental review documentation. around the same t

to abuse ceqa. please support the sb37 resolution. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi all. good afternoon supervisors. here today for the land use transportation committee. my name is dr. heidi redow and i'm calling on behalf of a larger coalition. i'm also a resident of district 4 and i'm a mom. while the future of the great highway or better known the great walkway is not on the agenda. i wanted to instruct comment. the board of supervisors approached a decision point in the coming weeks for keeping the great walkway. >> clerk: madam, we have to stick -- we have to keep your comments to the items on the agenda. unfortunately, general public comment is not taken on at committee. so if you can redirect your comments to item number 2, to the california state bill, otherwise, we can take your comments tomorrow at the board meeting. >> thanks. yeah. we'll be sharing a petition of over 5,000 signatures then. thanks so much. >> clerk: thank you so much. >> [inaudible] >> clerk: h

ceqa reform is necessary. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is janice lee and i'm here on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. obviously, there are a lot of feelings getting brought up. i think supervisor haney has said probably everything i would have wanted him to say. and we believe at the bike coalition that this legislation does this. as you heard, the planning commission has unanimously recommended approval of this legislation. the idea that this would erode ceqa, you can't have it both ways. opponents of this legislation have in the same breath said that appeals don't happen this often and a ceqa appeal at 6,$500 a pop to file. these appeals are filed by the white vote with privilege. created significant changes to the way san francisco impacts are measured. san francisco immediately moved forward with those changes and began to use vehicle mile travel and sb17 in july 2020. still requires environmental review documentation. around the same t

this site identifies the key dates of the ceqa review. in summary, the department solicited and incorporated the public on the scope of the analysis and held public hearings on the planning process. the public submitted comments [indiscernible] which covered a range of topics. the department published the responses to comments on the draft e.i.r. on april 14, 2021. we also issued an errata on april 19, adding a comment letter to the letter from s.f. urban riders that we had inadvertently omitted from the april 14 responses to comments document. all of the issues raised in this letter related to the accuracy are fully addressed in the april 14 responses. these documents have been provided to the commission as part of the project's hearing packet. the responses document in combination with the draft e.i.r. constitute the final e.i.r. which is before you today for certification. the final e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision-makers and the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the potential environmental imp

no evidence as required under ceqa.for example, claims raised include impacts as potentially devastating. city staff has done a tremendous job responding to the appeal. we support their analysis. the claims are sufficient and request to prepare it should be opobjected. the features of grubb steak. this project including the key features of the grubb steak. it hat changed and will require additional approval. the project and features are part of the project and satisfy. we have comments about a waiver. where a development has the effect of precluding the construction of development. the sponsor submitted evidence indicating how the waiver would include the construction of the project under the bonus law. this project has been in process since 2015, six years. it worked with staff, community and local historians on the preservation of the grubstake as well as navigated changes in the underlying planning code. it complied with the legal requirements and it is time to move the project forward. we urge you to reject the appe

this site identifies the key dates of the ceqa review. in summary, the department solicited and incorporated the public on the scope of the analysis and held public hearings on the planning process. the public submitted comments [indiscernible] which covered a range of topics. the department published the responses to comments on the draft e.i.r. on april 14, 2021. we also issued an errata on april 19, adding a comment letter to the letter from s.f. urban riders that we had inadvertently omitted from the april 14 responses to comments document. all of the issues raised in this letter related to the accuracy are fully addressed in the april 14 responses. these documents have been provided to the commission as part of the project's hearing packet. the responses document in combination with the draft e.i.r. constitute the final e.i.r. which is before you today for certification. the final e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision-makers and the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the potential environmental imp

we have ceqa, we have everything in place. another project is innovation, for example, and we took that approach because of the size of the complexity of these projects that the longer these projects are delayed, the bigger the escalation is. so we worked with the capital planning team to get some, to front us some planning moneys to get sort of design and project management sort of services to get these projects and ideas ready. when the first issuance is issued later this year, all these projects are going to be going out to bid in two thousand twenty-two right away. that's one of the lessons we've learned in the last two months to your point. >> thanks. that's great to hear. >> if there's no other questions, do we take public comment now? >> i think we have a liaison report. >> chairman: oh, sorry. >> clerk: that's okay. with member pantoja. >> good morning everybody. it's good to see such wonderful familiar faces. it's been awhile. so you've all really asked a lot of the same questions i did and you covered a very thorough

i assume that's probably a ceqa thing. it just seems like eliminating that entirely would not be a huge change in the status quo. >> fully removing the requirement is probably not feasible. we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj. this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process, there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is

this site identifies the key dates of the ceqa review. in summary, the department solicited and incorporated the public on the scope of the analysis and held public hearings on the planning process. the public submitted comments [indiscernible] which covered a range of topics. the department published the responses to comments on the draft e.i.r. on april 14, 2021. we also issued an errata on april 19, adding a comment letter to the letter from s.f. urban riders that we had inadvertently omitted from the april 14 responses to comments document. all of the issues raised in this letter related to the accuracy are fully addressed in the april 14 responses. these documents have been provided to the commission as part of the project's hearing packet. the responses document in combination with the draft e.i.r. constitute the final e.i.r. which is before you today for certification. the final e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision-makers and the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the potential environmental imp

just two items here, i did file a ceqa appellant. -- appeal. i hope to discuss that ceqa appeal with the appropriate p.u.c. it's my hope and desire to resolve issues and withdraw the appeal. i don't think if needs to go to a hearing. i think we can sort out my concerns and come to agreement and resolve the matter. i'm hoping that happens in the next couple of weeks. the other item particularly to president maxwell, the creek adaptation strange was discussed this morning at the m.t.a. policy and -- and governance committee. i saw photos of president maxwell at prior public meetings about that. it dealt with protecting critical infrastructure assets around the creek from forecasted sea level rise this morning was focused on m.t.a. facilities. that certainly has great importance for the p.u.c. facilities. i would suggest it could be discussed here before this commission got a lot of impact on facilities out there. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: public comment on item 4 general public c

airlines to extend the term from two years from july 2, 2021 through june 30,2023 and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> thank you, madam clerk. >> please call the roll on item number 3. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> supervisor haney. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> there are 11 aye's. >> thank you. and without objection this, resolution is adopted unanimously. maz am clerk, please call item number four. >> item four is an ordinance to amend the fire code and existing building code to extend the deadline for building owners to upgrade existing fire alarm systems from july 1,2021 to july 1,2023, and to make the appropriate findings. >> president: thank you, madam clerk. please call the roll on item number four. >> clerk: on item four, supervisor presa canario. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani.

we have started the ceqa process. and the h.u.c. hearing for the preservation alternatives is scheduled for june 2021. the draft eir is scheduled to be published in august of this year. and we continue to work very hard to insure that we are able to make that schedule. and that draft eir contemplates the removal of the bridge over kearney street, correct? >> that is correct, supervisor peskin. >> and meanwhile, you are doing construction drawings, is that true? >> yes, we're doing construction drawings on portions of the project that is very clear and in terms of the design itself and the configuration and everything. the portion of it that is being deferred as we work through some of the nuances around the bridge and focussing on the design itself. and great. i can take the rest of it offline. thank you, chair haney and member bs of the budget and finance committee. have a good long rest of your two meetings. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> thank you. >> back to you. >> and i think the next department to present on the health an

airlines to extend the term from two years from july 2, 2021 through june 30,2023 and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> thank you, madam clerk. >> please call the roll on item number 3. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> supervisor haney. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> there are 11 aye's. >> thank you. and without objection this, resolution is adopted unanimously. maz am clerk, please call item number four. >> item four is an ordinance to amend the fire code and existing building code to extend the deadline for building owners to upgrade existing fire alarm systems from july 1,2021 to july 1,2023, and to make the appropriate findings. >> president: thank you, madam clerk. please call the roll on item number four. >> clerk: on item four, supervisor presa canario. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani.

right now, we're working very closely with planning and public works to get the ceqa approval moving forward. we have to have all these pieces in place, including the purchase of the port property before we can finally say yes, we're going to buy the prologis property, if that makes sense, so this gives us the time that we need to make all those regulatory things -- get all those things through. so there's that, and then, the budget, we are still in discussion with the mayor's budget office, but this week, it was confirmed, if you saw it in the media, that the mayor is going to fund a new street wellness response team. we have the street crisis response team. this will be the street wellness response team that will basically respond to incidents, "well-being checks of people," perhaps laying down on the sidewalk but not having a medical crisis or not having a behavioral health crisis. this is what the police had of their 910 calls, wellness checks, so the mayor was, like, a community paramedic and an e.m.t. and possibly a h.o.t. team member to go out and address these calls and get t

that will take several years with ceqa, so we went with the option with the lease to purchase. if the port piece of property falls through, we can just walk away from this lease agreement, but i have high hopes, and it should be approximately seven or eight acres overall that we will be looking at getting, and i'll continue to keep you updated on this, but it is moving along, and it is going to take some time, but i am really proud of all the folks that have worked so hard on this, some who are here and some who aren't here. and then, we are in the final weeks of working on the mayor's budget. i will be going to that event, and once it's introduced to the mayor, it goes before the board of supervisors for discussion and presentation. right now, we are scheduled to present to the board on june 17, and then, a week later, on june 24, and in june, director corso can present what will be presented to the board of supervisors, and i will be reaching out to many of the supervisors in the coming weeks. as you know, we are initially asked to cut 7.5% and an additional 2.5%, and that is

i just found the latest ceqa document which was really a needle in a haystack. it's only available at one location at planning, not easy to find at all. and i'm not sure if the appeal deadline has passed. in my view it may be appropriate as a class 1 categorical exemption under ceqa but not an emergency statutory exemption. if i read slide five correctly, this may save a minute or two, that's the way that i read it. but with confusing hours, is it really worth it? that's the question. and as liz said parking supply in the area is constrained, not everyone in town and in particular in that area of town, has off-street parking available. so i'm not speaking in favor or opposed to the item. but those are my comments. thanks. >> chair borden: thank you, and next speaker. >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: (indiscernible) i'm in support. i wish we could do more. i would like to see a measure of consistency. the number one line is very (indiscernible) it's one of the lines that i have ridden most frequently. and ridden the lo

finally, i have no ceqa comments on the project at this time and thank you all very much. >> no other comments. >> commissioner: a mention to aprevious. >> second. >> commissioner: moved and seconded. roll call, please. [roll call] . you have five ayes. >> commissioner: next item. >> clerk: item 10. 10. authorize the general manager to extend by nine months through march 31, 2022, the following programs currently scheduled to end june 30, 2021: (1) the temporary emergency customer assistance program for covid-19 relief for single-family residential customers providing a discount of 15% on water, 35% on sewer, and 30% on hetch hetchy power bills, (2) the application deadline for the small business and nonprofit customer assistance program for covid-19 relief providing a 20% discount on water and sewer bills with bill discounts under this program continuing for six months from the date of application approval, and (3) the temporary suspension of rules governing water/power shutoffs, liens, and fines. this will be presented. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm aaron franks. i'm the rat

pipeline are former gas station sites with leaking underground storage sites and they were granted ceqa exemptions. it will bring grants on the sites to a stop. state law governing these contaminated sites does not allow for exemptions to be applied, so the legislation is ensuring that the local planning departments will adhere to state law to protect our environment and the health of residents and the construction workers, as well as to ensure public oversight and participation in the environmental review of these projects. i would like to thank lisa gibson and other staff from the environmental planning division for their engagement with us about s.b.-37. and also for raising concerns that s.b.-37 could potentially impact minor building permits that don't involve oil disturbance. i would like to note that a legislative aide from senator dave cortese, made it clear this is not the intent of the bill and they'll explore needed amendments to the bill to ensure that this is the case. so i -- i finally would like to thank the co-sponsors of the resolution, president walton and supervisors

or the planning department posts the relevant ceqa document. i would ask are the new fees a revenue measure needing a budget amendment under charter section 88106. d. i oppose this radical repurposes city streets to serve narrow private interest. i did not take a stand on the temporary shared spaces program. this is supposed to be permanent. it's a permanented call repurposes of city streets. i oppose it as such. thank you very much. >> chair borden: thank you mr. pilpel. city attorney, can you explain the ceqa document and the appropriateness? >> yes. chair borden. i have confirmed that the addendum to the mitigated negative declaration is posted on the planning department website and was posted in an appropriate time. we can provide that document to any member of the public that would like it. >> chair borden: thank you. did you have anything to add ms? >> no. >> chair borden: we'll continue with public comment at this time. next caller on the line please. >> caller: hello, commissioners. my name is richard rothman. i'm a senior citizen livin

or the planning department posts the relevant ceqa document. i would ask are the new fees a revenue measure needing a budget amendment under charter section 88106. d. i oppose this radical repurposes city streets to serve narrow private interest. i did not take a stand on the temporary shared spaces program. this is supposed to be permanent. it's a permanented call repurposes of city streets. i oppose it as such. thank you very much. >> chair borden: thank you mr. pilpel. city attorney, can you explain the ceqa document and the appropriateness? >> yes. chair borden. i have confirmed that the addendum to the mitigated negative declaration is posted on the planning department website and was posted in an appropriate time. we can provide that document to any member of the public that would like it. >> chair borden: thank you. did you have anything to add ms? >> no. >> chair borden: we'll continue with public comment at this time. next caller on the line please. >> caller: hello, commissioners. my name is richard rothman. i'm a senior citizen livin

was the mayor and supervisor haney's ordinance that would allow certain projects to proceed while a ceqa appeal is pending before the board of supervisors. the criteria is as follows: the project has to be related to a safety health measure necessary to protect the public, public employees, or public property. a temporary activity lasting no more than 180 days, and a reversal activity that is limited to additions that can be easily removed without damaging the site. the ordinance also [inaudible] or for properties under leases from the port commission. appeals of such projects would require 50 san francisco residents or five supervisors to subscribe to the notice of appeal. commissioners, you heard this item on february 25 and unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance. during the hearing, supervisor haney was present as one of the sponsors and introduced nonsubstantive changes regarding the verification process. supervisor preston concurred with supervisor peskin, reiterating the infrequency of these appeals. he also expressed concern that environmental groups are not in support

we have ceqa, we have everything in place. another project is innovation, for example, and we took that approach because of the size of the complexity of these projects that the longer these projects are delayed, the bigger the escalation is. so we worked with the capital planning team to get some, to front us some planning moneys to get sort of design and project management sort of services to get these projects and ideas ready. when the first issuance is issued later this year, all these projects are going to be going out to bid in two thousand twenty-two right away. that's one of the lessons we've learned in the last two months to your point. >> thanks. that's great to hear. >> if there's no other questions, do we take public comment now? >> i think we have a liaison report. >> chairman: oh, sorry. >> clerk: that's okay. with member pantoja. >> good morning everybody. it's good to see such wonderful familiar faces. it's been awhile. so you've all really asked a lot of the same questions i did and you covered a very thorough

we have started the ceqa process. and the h.u.c. hearing for the preservation alternatives is scheduled for june 2021. the draft eir is scheduled to be published in august of this year. and we continue to work very hard to insure that we are able to make that schedule. and that draft eir contemplates the removal of the bridge over kearney street, correct? >> that is correct, supervisor peskin. >> and meanwhile, you are doing construction drawings, is that true? >> yes, we're doing construction drawings on portions of the project that is very clear and in terms of the design itself and the configuration and everything. the portion of it that is being deferred as we work through some of the nuances around the bridge and focussing on the design itself. and great. i can take the rest of it offline. thank you, chair haney and member bs of the budget and finance committee. have a good long rest of your two meetings. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> thank you. >> back to you. >> and i think the next department to present on the health an

records must be kept for ceqa purposes, documents, e-mails and text.ld cite smith versus san jose and golden door properties versus superior court. ceqa attorneys can weigh in on that. maybe other documents are missing as well. i would need more time to review. it's not urgent. i have not reviewed regarding other technology record retention periods. i agree with the comments made by peter strauss regarding retention and use of historical records. to conclude, i would ask you to continue that to a future meeting. thank you for hearing me. thank you very much. >> chair borden: with that, we'll close public comment. on that item, so, so i see director lai has a question. >> director lai: thank you, chair. could staff just quickly address item 10.10 on essentially references in the document for staff members -- like the contact staff members that are no longer with the agency. i assume that might be okay because we have other directories and more current information all over our website to provide that information to the public, right? >> yes, director lai

then the ceqa appeals will be noted in your calendar item. it's an approval action and that indicates an appeal is possible. next slide please. so the charter interestingly is not very specific about the role of the sfmta board versus the role of the agency. most of the authority given to the sfmta is generally in the charter, given to the agency. there are a number of things that are called specifically. all boards and commissions on the charter provide policy direction to their departments, so that is one of your functions. you can appoint and remove both the director of transportation and the secretary. you approve settlements recommended by our office. as i mentioned earlier, you approve fares, fines, and fees. you have to approve the mta budget, approve contracts and collective bargaining agreements, and inquiry of the mta's jurisdiction. next slide please. your authority over the agency has a limitation, which is the principle of administrative interference. this means that you are primarily work, working through the director of transpo

pipeline are former gas station sites with leaking underground storage sites and they were granted ceqa exemptions. it will bring grants on the sites to a stop. state law governing these contaminated sites does not allow for exemptions to be applied, so the legislation is ensuring that the local planning departments will adhere to state law to protect our environment and the health of residents and the construction workers, as well as to ensure public oversight and participation in the environmental review of these projects. i would like to thank lisa gibson and other staff from the environmental planning division for their engagement with us about s.b.-37. and also for raising concerns that s.b.-37 could potentially impact minor building permits that don't involve oil disturbance. i would like to note that a legislative aide from senator dave cortese, made it clear this is not the intent of the bill and they'll explore needed amendments to the bill to ensure that this is the case. so i -- i finally would like to thank the co-sponsors of the resolution, president walton and supervisors

so on my initial comments on item 15 are as follows -- it is frustrating to find ceqa documents related to the m.c.a. board and some m.c.a. administrative hearings. there is no easy way to communicate with the city attorney office with m.c.a. legal matters and making public record requests takes time and effort, though caroline salia does a good job and i want that to be known. taken together, however, it is difficult to interact with m.t.a. legally and that can lead to adversarial proceedings like sunshine complaints and like litigation, like -- i don't know what -- other things. item 11 today did not have the correct planning department case number. do i need to file an appeal or litigate that matter? how do we get these things fixed? you have more staff than i do and yet i keep finding these things, it's incredibly frustrating. we should work together and find better ways to interact with the public and not just me, but the rest of the public as well. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: for a better public outcome. thank you very much. i'll have more when you do the actual legal training. >> c

so on my initial comments on item 15 are as follows -- it is frustrating to find ceqa documents related to the m.c.a. board and some m.c.a. administrative hearings. there is no easy way to communicate with the city attorney office with m.c.a. legal matters and making public record requests takes time and effort, though caroline salia does a good job and i want that to be known. taken together, however, it is difficult to interact with m.t.a. legally and that can lead to adversarial proceedings like sunshine complaints and like litigation, like -- i don't know what -- other things. item 11 today did not have the correct planning department case number. do i need to file an appeal or litigate that matter? how do we get these things fixed? you have more staff than i do and yet i keep finding these things, it's incredibly frustrating. we should work together and find better ways to interact with the public and not just me, but the rest of the public as well. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: for a better public outcome. thank you very much. i'll have more when you do the actual legal training. >> c

. >> whatever recommendation that's brought to the board of supervisors would need to have ceqa considerationnder the california environmental friendly act. you know, at this point, we are really, you know, mapping out and scoping a whole bunch of work and i think the ultimate question about whether we -- what we come forward with is a pilot or not will depend on a lot of things and a lot of things that we learn in our early outreach and in our early data analysis as to whether we do need to do a pilot to learn more or do we or do we have adequate information to make a sound path forward. >> and, i know you asked for confirmation from all three agencies. just wanted to confirm with the comments of director tumlin. we are working hand and glove in this outreach process and the schedule that you laid out is with a we are committed to delivering. >> then, i think in the followup question will be, you know, knowing that technically that the current road closures in golden gate park and that is including mlk drive all the way to jfk to the eastern entrance of the park. we know that with 121 days w