and misleading ceqa analysis. a landmarking designation for 447 battery street was initiated earlier this year, which means that assumption can no longer be relied upon. although the appellants disagree that their building is historic or landmark eligible, the fact remains that a landmarking designation has been initiated and must be accounted for in the environmental review. due to this basic flaw, the m&d fails to recognize historic resources in addition to traffic and safety. it also inappropriately defers the implementation of specific mitigation measures. like all of the studies for 530 sansome, the historic resource evaluation did not recognize the potential landmark status of 447 battery. 442 and 445 washington retain original brick work, ensure similar architect -- and share similar architectural features as the similar apartment building. these features can only be finalized through the landmarking resolution process which has not yet been completed. without improvements, the 530 sansome project will appa

and that's just not part of chapter 31 but follows directly the language of ceqa and the ceqa guidelines which allow for appeals when a nonelected official making body certifies an e.i.r., the certification is appealable to the official elected body. so here, the certification can be appealed to you, and the certification is a term defining ceqa, and it's just whether or not the -- >> -- so the projects that are consistent with the zoning that we've established through planning processes and then build those buildings without, you know, without a ton of process and difficulty around doing what we said we want, but in this case, there must have been a planning process for this property at some point, and i'm curious if it's any of those early 2000s kind of planning processes or if it's older than that, but i'm curious how the older zoning limits apply when this part of the city has had a ton of development, a lot of that encouraged by the -- >> supervisor mandelman: i'm just curious because that process, that planning, that thought about how this property related to the other properties i

and that's just not part of chapter 31 but follows directly the language of ceqa and the ceqa guidelines which allow for appeals when a nonelected official making body certifies an e.i.r., the certification is appealable to the official elected body. so here, the certification can be appealed to you, and the certification is a term defining ceqa, and it's just whether or not the -- >> -- so the projects that are consistent with the zoning that we've established through planning processes and then build those buildings without, you know, without a ton of process and difficulty around doing what we said we want, but in this case, there must have been a planning process for this property at some point, and i'm curious if it's any of those early 2000s kind of planning processes or if it's older than that, but i'm curious how the older zoning limits apply when this part of the city has had a ton of development, a lot of that encouraged by the -- >> supervisor mandelman: i'm just curious because that process, that planning, that thought about how this property related to the other properties i

and misleading ceqa analysis. a landmarking designation for 447 battery street was initiated earlier this year, which means that assumption can no longer be relied upon. although the appellants disagree that their building is historic or landmark eligible, the fact remains that a landmarking designation has been initiated and must be accounted for in the environmental review. due to this basic flaw, the m&d fails to recognize historic resources in addition to traffic and safety. it also inappropriately defers the implementation of specific mitigation measures. like all of the studies for 530 sansome, the historic resource evaluation did not recognize the potential landmark status of 447 battery. 442 and 445 washington retain original brick work, ensure similar architect -- and share similar architectural features as the similar apartment building. these features can only be finalized through the landmarking resolution process which has not yet been completed. without improvements, the 530 sansome project will appa

and misleading ceqa analysis. a landmarking designation for 447 battery street was initiated earlier this year, which means that assumption can no longer be relied upon. although the appellants disagree that their building is historic or landmark eligible, the fact remains that a landmarking designation has been initiated and must be accounted for in the environmental review. due to this basic flaw, the m&d fails to recognize historic resources in addition to traffic and safety. it also inappropriately defers the implementation of specific mitigation measures. like all of the studies for 530 sansome, the historic resource evaluation did not recognize the potential landmark status of 447 battery. 442 and 445 washington retain original brick work, ensure similar architect -- and share similar architectural features as the similar apartment building. these features can only be finalized through the landmarking resolution process which has not yet been completed. without improvements, the 530 sansome project will appa

again, no ceqa analysis was conducted. the question is, why is the sfpuc skirting the required ceqa analysis? this is important. we can all sit here and say we care about the environment. if we aren't doing our proper due diligence to make sure our actions are not have negative impact, we can't pretend like they aren't. when you look at when this course was opened back in 1917, there were couple thousands. we had the risk use data. there were few thousand kids went unthere to run. today we have thousands and thousands of kids running. close to 20,000 kids in a year. when we're talking about the usage, we're not talking about it used as a cross country course. yes, since 1971 it was used as a cross country course. no ceqa analysis was done. we have people cutting away looping who don't know it's looping. nothing has been told to these people. >> sorry, your time has expired. next caller. tough two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon. can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is jordan grimes i'm a san mateo

it's set forth under the ceqa guidelines. an e.i.r. is legally adequate when it is [indiscernible] to provide decision makers with information that enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes into account the [indiscernible] here, that has been met. it has been met with the substantial evidence that has been proven in the record, which is based on facts, it is based on expert testimony and opinion, and it is not based on opinion, unsubstantiated fact, narrative, and that is what is being raised by the appellant. we therefore request the board of supervisors reject the appeal and uphold the e.i.r. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. just to make sure you're finished. you have two minutes. >> yes, we're finished. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. thank you. do we have any questions left for the project sponsor? i don't see anyone, so at this time, we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal to call in for public comment. madam clerk? >> clerk: as the president j

violates the ceqa requirements. the m.n.d.s analysis and conclusions are all premised on the assumption that the building at 447 battery will be demolished which can no longer be assured to the initiation of a landmark building at 447 battery. with the necessary preconstruction testing, surveys, and information gathering must be done prior to final approval and the specific mitigation measures and alternatives must be identified first. without additional investigation, the m.n.d. is inadequate to specifically inform the public and does not allow the public to observe the mitigation measures. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes your time. >> president walton: thank you. colleagues, do you have any questions for the appellant? i don't see anyone on the roster. madam clerk, we will go to public comment specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. the board will hear public testimony from those in support of the appeal of the mitigated negative declaration

inclusionary housing program requirements and affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa and making findings of consistency with the general plan. and the meeting idea is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. if you have not done so already, please hit star 3 to line up to speak. the system will prompt that you have raised your hand in confirmation. madam chair? >> thank you so much, madam clerk. and we have supervisor hillary ronen here with us today who is the sponsor of the legislation. thank you supervisor ronen, for introducing this to the land use committee, an and the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, president melgar. the legislation before you today is intended to close significant loopholes and gaps in our planning code requirements for affordable housing in mu market rate residential development. the planning code section 415 regulates the inclusionary housing program under which developers mitigate the impact of new market rate units and as has been shown in multiple settings including regularly updated next analysis and prepared for local requirements. the

affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa and making appropriate findings. members of the pub lib who wish to provide public comment should call the ie number on the screen, 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. if you have not done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand to speak. >> thank you very much. this item was put on the agenda as a committee report, but the sponsor supervisor chan have amendments which are substantive, so here to speak about the amendments is kelly gross from supervisor chan's office. welcome. >> thank you, chair melgar. and hello, supervisors. thank you for having me today. a little bit of background on the ordinance and context for the amendments as well. and supervisor chan with the intent to prohibit any gas development and extraction and processing on land owned by the city and processing and created in 1990 to respond to federal pressure by making it nearly impossible. the ordinance seeks to remove the article to affirmatively proh

affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa and making appropriate findings. members of the pub lib who wish to provide public comment should call the ie number on the screen, 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. if you have not done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand to speak. >> thank you very much. this item was put on the agenda as a committee report, but the sponsor supervisor chan have amendments which are substantive, so here to speak about the amendments is kelly gross from supervisor chan's office. welcome. >> thank you, chair melgar. and hello, supervisors. thank you for having me today. a little bit of background on the ordinance and context for the amendments as well. and supervisor chan with the intent to prohibit any gas development and extraction and processing on land owned by the city and processing and created in 1990 to respond to federal pressure by making it nearly impossible. the ordinance seeks to remove the article to affirmatively proh

there was mailed notice commencement in the ceqa process in november 2020. in april 2021, notices had been completed. there was newspaper notice. there were also posters placed all around the project site. three posters on washington. three posters on battery. two posters on sansome. in june 2021, there was a whole separate round of noticing with posters placed throughout the project site. at the beginning of this presentation, contended that they were not able to participate in the public hearing process because of a lack of notice and that's incorrect. they did participate in the planning commission hearing and they were able to file this on the basis of appeal. so the ceqa appeal i think is worth commenting on. the department of determination. the board unanimously denied that appeal and the board of supervisor's reaction was that the appeal was meritless. everything at the kitchen sink to see what sticks and these exact same arguments that apply here tonight. and so what you see here is that 447 and ywlad are attempting to hold the property. not homeowne

in a case like this the use of future baseline the reason for that is the fundamental function of ceqaand worked very hard to make sure that it was considered a high priority of the hpc so it would be great to get that information as soon as we can. just looking at the mitigation measuresthis is a really good list . i'm wondering if this list also includes and incorporates some of the things that we've been consideringunder the situational and social equity lends . like how we could add to this list using that lens. and how we could do that. >> just to answer a quick question, thank you for the question commission president. in regards to the list one of the things that we did start with is we went through a variety of environmental documents that have been published by the department and also by other departments as well as mitigation measures that have been discussed during conferences and our quorum. and then we went through them to try to see how it is they could be adopted or changed as well to sort of address the racial and social equity directions that we've been given bythe his

ceqa focuses on a project's shadow impacts on publicly accessible open spaces, not privately accessible spaces on private properties. ed shadow analysis is consistent with the department's methodology for shadow impacts, and no further analysis is required under ceqa. next slide, please. response 1-b, ceqa guidelines section 15065 requires a response when the impact will impact general human beings. there's no such government adopted standard for shadow. in the absence of such a standard, a lead agency has discretion to rely on its own significant criteria and methodologies to determine whether an impact has occurred under section 15065. the appellant does not suggest a standard that should be used to make this determination and has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that this project would result in a significant shadow impact on the environment. next slide. response number two, the final m.n.d. adequately analyzed the project's impact on historic resources. the existing building is not an individually eligible historic resource. rather, it's a contributor to a historic d

ceqa focuses on a project's shadow impacts on publicly accessible open spaces, not privately accessible spaces on private properties. ed shadow analysis is consistent with the department's methodology for shadow impacts, and no further analysis is required under ceqa. next slide, please. response 1-b, ceqa guidelines section 15065 requires a response when the impact will impact general human beings. there's no such government adopted standard for shadow. in the absence of such a standard, a lead agency has discretion to rely on its own significant criteria and methodologies to determine whether an impact has occurred under section 15065. the appellant does not suggest a standard that should be used to make this determination and has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that this project would result in a significant shadow impact on the environment. next slide. response number two, the final m.n.d. adequately analyzed the project's impact on historic resources. the existing building is not an individually eligible historic resource. rather, it's a contributor to a historic d

. >> both the planning department and the project sponsor have said that ceqa only requires such a finding on general human beings, not on individual human beings. this project impacted residents over 20 units -- in over 20 units. i want to know how many units it takes to be considered general human beings. this is a ridiculous standard. i also want to point out that the question in front of the board now is whether substantial evidence exists that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though another conclusion might be reached. the residents used scientific methodology and architectural standards for lux lighting. just because the project sponsor doesn't like the facts and arguments presented doesn't mean it's erroneous. he made arguments in his presentation that although it may be misleading, some of these may be accepted mathematical [indiscernible]. so this should be sent back to the department to do a better analysis to find out what might be mitigated. as the project sponsor points out, there are only six pages of the h.r.a. that talks about the physical character

and one thing to note is that socioeconomic impacts in and of themselves are not requirements under ceqa. so what we looked at is whether or not there could be physical secondary impacts as a result of physical gentrification caused by the project. so in this case, studies concluded that there would not be gentrification and displacement beyond those disclosed in the e.i.r. -- gentrification and displacement that could result in environmental impact beyond those described in the e.i.r., and i do believe we have the authors of those reports -- or that report if you have further questions. >> supervisor preston: yes, thank you, i do have further questions. when you say in response to the comments, we, which i assume is meant to be the planning department had a study done, isn't it more accurate that build, inc. hired a.r.h. urban and economics to prepare a study? >> it is correct that build, inc. is the one who has paid for the study, but like all ceqa analyses that are done, we have a -- the project sponsor is the one who paid -- ultimately paid for the study to be done, but that scope of

please mail copies of all the relevant ceqa documents to me. it is impossible to find specific transit specific ceqa documents on the planning department website and there's more than 100 and buried. it's impossible to navigate and find them and staff knows that and should have those as attachments to the staff report to calendar items like this. again, the financial plan is overall and should highlight the construction phase of the project not clear despite the discussion where the cost savings from being under the engineer's estimate might get redirected. i'm most concerned about coordination with other projects in this vare. p.u.c. has a separate water and power project just starting and will be in construction almost the same time as taraval will will result in a lot of traffic on yeloa and want to know what is done to coordination traffic with other projects in the area including caltrans work and anything rec/park may be doing at 19th and vincente. i encourage you to follow-up with questions. >> are there additional callers? >> next speak

please mail copies of all the relevant ceqa documents to me. it is impossible to find specific transit specific ceqa documents on the planning department website and there's more than 100 and buried. it's impossible to navigate and find them and staff knows that and should have those as attachments to the staff report to calendar items like this. again, the financial plan is overall and should highlight the construction phase of the project not clear despite the discussion where the cost savings from being under the engineer's estimate might get redirected. i'm most concerned about coordination with other projects in this vare. p.u.c. has a separate water and power project just starting and will be in construction almost the same time as taraval will will result in a lot of traffic on yeloa and want to know what is done to coordination traffic with other projects in the area including caltrans work and anything rec/park may be doing at 19th and vincente. i encourage you to follow-up with questions. >> are there additional callers? >> next speak

affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa and making appropriate findings. members of the pub lib who wish to provide public comment should call the ie number on the screen, 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. if you have not done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand to speak. >> thank you very much. this item was put on the agenda as a committee report, but the sponsor supervisor chan have amendments which are substantive, so here to speak about the amendments is kelly gross from supervisor chan's office. welcome. >> thank you, chair melgar. and hello, supervisors. thank you for having me today. a little bit of background on the ordinance and context for the amendments as well. and supervisor chan with the intent to prohibit any gas development and extraction and processing on land owned by the city and processing and created in 1990 to respond to federal pressure by making it nearly impossible. the ordinance seeks to remove the article to affirmatively proh

development at 1 and 45 adrian court in burling gamecalcal and to affirm the skwal determination. -- ceqa determination. >> president walton: that is adapted unanimously. >> item 30 is ordinance to amend the administrative code by setting march 31 as the annual due date to pay registration fees for weighing and measuring devices and automated point of sale stations used for commercial purposes. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. >> item 31 is a motion to reappoint supervisor melgar to the association of bay area governments executive board regional planning committee, term ending september 23, 2023. >> president walton: thank you. i will entertain a motion to excuse supervisor melgar, made by supervisor ronen, seconded by supervisor peskin. madame clerk, on the motion. >> on the motion to excuse supervisor melgar from item 31, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walto

without showing good cause for the failure, affirming the planning department's determination under the ceqaand making necessary findings. mr. chair? >> chair mar: thank you, mr. clerk. i want to thank mayor breed for bringing this item forward. chair rodriguez? >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you, mr. carroll, for that detailed explanation. good morning, chair mar, supervisor haney, and supervisor stefani. the item would make a number of amendments to the police code. i've split this up into three sections just for easy processing for today. thank you for pointing this out, chair mar. this has been a collaboration of a year-plus with the city, with all of you, with the mayor's office and the community to make sure that we get this right, very thoughtful and thought out thoroughly. we do have several slides, so i'm just going to walk-through them. next slide, please. so here with the three sections that we're going to talk about. with the first one, enacting the mayor's initiative to prioritize equity, there are three components that i'll talk to. the second is formalizing equity legacy po

on-site laundry services unless replaced, affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa, and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and findings of public necessarily, convenience, and welfare under planning code section 302. and today, we have lee hefner from supervisor peskin. >> and you have the floor. >> thank you so much, commission, and commissioner zouzounis for taking up this legislation today. this legislation, on its surface, i think is a fairly straightforward tool designed to prevent the loss of laundromats in san francisco, and i just, by way of background, how we got to this point, our office, supervisor peskin's office, has been looking into the issue of laundromat closures for a couple of years now, and this was just based on the information that we were getting periodically that this or that laundromat or dry cleaner was closing down. it was our intention to look at certain use types under the planning code that are really community serving businesses, kind of backbones of the

affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa and making appropriate findings.pub lib who wish to provide public comment should call the ie number on the screen, 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. if you have not done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand to speak. >> thank you very much. this item was put on the agenda as a committee report, but the sponsor supervisor chan have amendments which are substantive, so here to speak about the amendments is kelly gross from supervisor chan's office. welcome. >> thank you, chair melgar. and hello, supervisors. thank you for having me today. a little bit of background on the ordinance and context for the amendments as well. and supervisor chan with the intent to prohibit any gas development and extraction and processing on land owned by the city and processing and created in 1990 to respond to federal pressure by making it nearly impossible. the ordinance seeks to remove the article to affirmatively prohibit any assignm

this slide, it highlights the community outreach and environmental planning undertook as part of the ceqa. the planning commission will receive a response to documents two weeks before the eir certification hearing along with approval action on a date to be determined. today, the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the draft eir. for the members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record, please state slowly and clearly so the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not here to answer questions. comments will be transcribed and in writing. which will respond to all relevant, verbal comments received during the public comment period and make revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. if you're interested in commenting, in writing you can make the comments by mail to david young. or e-mail cpc1101-1123 sutter at sf gov by 5:00 p.m. august 25, 2021. as i mentioned -- october 5, 2021. otherwise, i would respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item b

this project qualifies under ceqa for exception.unsubstantiated claims it's a site for endangered species including a badger and we have someone here for questions found the site with no evidence of badger habitat and opponents made the same argument in a tree appeal and this is a highly disturbed lot and does not present habitat value. by operation of law, the project was deemed code compliant development project and governed by the housing accountability act. the housing accountability act requires the project be approved as the density proposed and no conditions can be imposed that would have a substantial adverse affect on the affordability for low-income households. this is exactly the kind of project we want to encourage as a city. it meets or exceeds all the planning code requirements and provide the unique opportunity for affordable housing and units for working families in a neighborhood that lacks affordable options and massing us reduced to respond to neighbors' concerns. the project has received more than 100 letters of

planning, we have existing conditions for sections prepared for the majority of subjects covered under ceqa. this is showing some of the work that we have done so far. the modeling a inthe analysis is identifying assets that are at risk. assets are showing assets at risk during the 2030 and 2040 time period. great number of asset there is that are at risk. the conditions that we're looking at is flooding conditions that would happen if no project were built. if no flood risk mitigation project were built. this is what the flooding conditions would look like. these are the assets that would be at risk. what's highlighted here, you can see in the box, there are lots of different types of assets that are at risk. we have people, residents, computers and workers. we have miles of transportation of roadways, railway, muni and bart. very important facilities located in this area, including fire stations, wastewater facilities, businesses and many other facilities. these are all assets that are at risk if we do not address future flooding conditions. this is the next steps for where we are in the

the ceqa appeal for 35 ventura avenue was also continued to october 26. did take up the appeal for the final mitigated negative declaration for the project at 530 sansome. the project would demolish the existing fire station and construct a 218 foot tall building and four story replacement fire station. the project had two different proposals. one would be a hotel and one would be residential. on july 29 of this year, the commission held a public hearing on the merits and ultimately affirmed the department's decision to adopt the mitigated negative declaration. after the final m.n.d. was published, ryan patterson on behalf of the appellant, 447 partners, l.l.c., filed an appeal of the mitigated negative declaration. there were three issues. one that the department did not provide notice of the m.n.d., two, that the description is not accurate, stable, or finite, and three, that the project will have an adverse effect on 447 battery, a historic resource. after the appellant's presentation, there were no members of the public who called in in support of the

on-site laundry services unless replaced, affirming the planning department's determination under ceqamaking findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and findings of public necessarily, convenience, and welfare under planning code section 302. and today, we have lee hefner from supervisor peskin. >> and you have the floor. >> thank you so much, commission, and commissioner zouzounis for taking up this legislation today. this legislation, on its surface, i think is a fairly straightforward tool designed to prevent the loss of laundromats in san francisco, and i just, by way of background, how we got to this point, our office, supervisor peskin's office, has been looking into the issue of laundromat closures for a couple of years now, and this was just based on the information that we were getting periodically that this or that laundromat or dry cleaner was closing down. it was our intention to look at certain use types under the planning code that are really community serving businesses, kind of backbones of the commun

amend the planning code to designate 336-398 12th street the san francisco eagle bark to determine ceqa determination and make the appropriate finding. >> president walton: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. today is a remarkable day for our city. the lgbtq community and, we'll be approving the san francisco eagle bar as a landmark in san francisco. i'm happy that we're finally here at the culmination of it. it's san francisco's oldest lgbtq bar. it opened doors in 1981 at the corner of 12th and harrison for 40 years. sf eagle is one of the remaining leather bars in the area that host history for lgbtq history. it is imperative that we acknowledge the significance and we endeavor to present this rich history from being erased due to the destabilizing pressure of ongoing gentrification and development. sf eagle bar is a cultural institution and community anchor that deserves all the protection and privileges that the city can provide. i want to thank all of you for your support and especially co-sponsor supervisors mandelman and ronen for supporting this historic landmarki

without showing good cause for the failure, affirming the planning department's determination under the ceqa act, and making necessary findings. mr. chair? >> chair mar: thank you, mr. clerk. i want to thank mayor breed for bringing this item forward. chair rodriguez? >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you, mr. carroll, for that detailed explanation. good morning, chair mar, supervisor haney, and supervisor stefani. the item would make a number of amendments to the police code. i've split this up into three sections just for easy processing for today. thank you for pointing this out, chair mar. this has been a collaboration of a year-plus with the city, with all of you, with the mayor's office and the community to make sure that we get this right, very thoughtful and thought out thoroughly. we do have several slides, so i'm just going to walk-through them. next slide, please. so here with the three sections that we're going to talk about. with the first one, enacting the mayor's initiative to prioritize equity, there are three components that i'll talk to. the second is formalizing equity leg

. >> both the planning department and the project sponsor have said that ceqa only requires such a finding on general human beings, not on individual human beings. this project impacted residents over 20 units -- in over 20 units. i want to know how many units it takes to be considered general human beings. this is a ridiculous standard. i also want to point out that the question in front of the board now is whether substantial evidence exists that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though another conclusion might be reached. the residents used scientific methodology and architectural standards for lux lighting. just because the project sponsor doesn't like the facts and arguments presented doesn't mean it's erroneous. he made arguments in his presentation that although it may be misleading, some of these may be accepted mathematical [indiscernible]. so this should be sent back to the department to do a better analysis to find out what might be mitigated. as the project sponsor points out, there are only six pages of the h.r.a. that talks about the physical character