and adopt the findings under ceqa by 1509 of the ceqa guidelines previously adopted by caltrans withct to this project. and that is it, are there any questions? >> thank you, commissioner paulson. >> so i have, thanks for your presentation, and i understand the dynamic and how this moves forward. i know, this is not, you know a very large bunch much pieces but every time you get rid of a land here, and you go someplace else, there is always a read flag that goes up. so in nuts and bolts, what is the benefit to everything of us giving this selling this land for buckle 0. --buck 80. >> the state of california has the power of imminent domain and they plan to sell road improvement and we're selling the parcels in lieu of a. >> so there is a threat of imminent domain. >> definitely. >> but the good news is there is no reason to believe that this is not just good public policy to help get the structure and transportation. >> right. >> there is no down side to that piece of the policy, correct? >> well i don't understand highway policy but i think, they're basically trying to upgrade state

these are conditions required to advance the ceqa process.er, this will be theoretically start next year and in parallel we'll begin transaction documents. what is happening on the side is the continuing exploring sources for the $58 million needed to get up to the point where it's as close to fully funded as possible by the time this is ready to go forward. we commit to update the commission with those grawnt dates and project up dispaits we'll continue to seek your guidance. with that, we conclude the port staff's portion of the presentation. we want to turn this over to our partner from snelgrove from pacific waterfront partners. and we will he be available for questions canned. >> good afternoon commissioners. i have three minutes so i'm going to go quickly. by order of himself. great to be here. pretty much david and josh took ts presentation away so i'll cut it short. i do want to recognize that we've been working hard on this. we have teams the best i've we ever had. jst instructional engineering, weave been working with [indiscernible

the housing action coalition recognizing ceqa because they dont want us to vote on this. what a irony. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor preston. >> i want to take a moment to recognize and appreciate supervisor chan's leadership and think is a important step to making it easier to build affordsable housing and doing it with labor at the table. we are far from our rena goals, we know that. we only get further as the goals increase soon and this measure will help us get there, so i just want to note,x there is a reason supervisor chan's measure is backed by the building construction trades council as we heard by united educators of san francisco, council community housing organization, she and her team have done really an amazing job of bringing everyone together. really broad coalition of partners on this, and i hope it will be successful. happy to be a cosponsor of it and thank you for all your work. >> thank you supervisor preston. i would just adopt supervisor preston's comments as my own as well. i dont see anyone else on the roster so the committee of the wh

the housing action coalition recognizing ceqa because they dont want us to vote on this. what a irony. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor preston. >> i want to take a moment to recognize and appreciate supervisor chan's leadership and think is a important step to making it easier to build affordsable housing and doing it with labor at the table. we are far from our rena goals, we know that. we only get further as the goals increase soon and this measure will help us get there, so i just want to note,x there is a reason supervisor chan's measure is backed by the building construction trades council as we heard by united educators of san francisco, council community housing organization, she and her team have done really an amazing job of bringing everyone together. really broad coalition of partners on this, and i hope it will be successful. happy to be a cosponsor of it and thank you for all your work. >> thank you supervisor preston. i would just adopt supervisor preston's comments as my own as well. i dont see anyone else on the roster so the committee of the wh

two small housekeeping items for consideration, first, in your ceqa finding motion, attachment a under section 6, on the second bullet, the dollar amount referenced and van ness market affordable housing fee is erroneous. it should be $8 million. a little note that the section 415 fee is correct. second note is page 17 of the plan, exhibit b, there's a dwelling unit exposure diagram. it is a 309 exception that is in the draft motion before you. so speaking of the motions, there are three action items before you today, but i believe you are not taking action on. updated ceqa findings motion to reflect updated information and updated downtown project authorization. and lastly, updated shadow findings. elevator overrun is required to service the highest floor whereas in the 2017 version, there was no usable open space on the roof deck. with the addition of that, we had to have elevator to service the highest floor and that's why we need the overrun. in summary, the planning department still recommends approval of this project. department still finds the modified project is on balance and

bidding is impractical and not public interest affirming the planning department determination under ceqating findings the sale of the property is consistent with the general plan and planning code. and authorizing the puc general manager and or city director of property to execute documents make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of the resolution and authorize puc general manager or director of property to enter into any additions amendments or other modifications to the sale agreement that do not materially decrease the benefit of the city with respect to the property nor increase the obligations or liability of either puc or the city and necessary or adviseable to complete the transaction contemplated in the sale agreement to effect wait the purpose and intent of the resolution. members joining remotely and wish to comment please call 415-655-0001. press star 3 to enter the speaker line. the system will indicate you raised your hand and when the system indicates you have been unmute td is queue to begin comments. madam chair. >> thank you, and i believe mayb

cites and received approval for 260 units across the 2 cites including a class 32 exemption under ceqa. gwen the significant number of units mid pen is moving with 850 turk and seeking public funding to fund the project it is in the receiving funding from other source solely from the state and other source. one key source is the state's excess cites local government matching grant's program requires a local matching funds. this grant program counts fee waivers as a match. in the resolution 100% affordable the eligible from waivers from the standard impact fees under planning code 406. allows for fee waivers 100% affordable provide 80% ami or lower and for 55 years affordable. the project at 850 turks meets the crip tear enthusiasm early the team won a 10 million grants the max award from the state's excess site's program. the state requires a resolution from the city demonstrating support and anticipated budget and verifying the fee waivers. the resolution before you release the 10 million in funds for the project and help developers finance capitol required. move the project toward th

and to affirm the ceqa determination and findings. >> thank you, so much. madam clerk. can you call the roll on item 7. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> no. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> supervisor dorsey. >> no. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> there are 9 aye's and 2 nos supervisors safai and dorsey in the decent. >> thank you, madam clerk. this ordinance passes but go ahead move to resin the vote. >> second. >> thank you, it has been a motion to reas i understand the vote by stefan and he safai. fa madam clerk on the motion. >> mr. president can you do that without objection. >> thank you. and the vote is rescinded and we will call for the roll. >> all right. on item upon 7. supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> no. >> supervisor stefani. >> no. >> walton. >> no. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> approximate supervisor dorsey. >> no. >> supervisor mandelman.

we advertised for the construction ceqa at the end of 2021. there will be an evaluation of real-time costs the ceqa is looking to maximize opportunities for local contractors. finally, we received three proposals from clark construction, web core buildings and one more. here are the results of the process with clark construction in the high four. we request your approval to award the contract to clark construction in an amount not to exceed $260.5 million for a duration of approximately seven years. we hope to [indiscernible] -- we will return to the commission for approval to proceed with the project. n.t.p. for construction is scheduled for january 2024. lastly, i would like to introduce clark and the clark teams we'll be working with on this project. building on the success at 5050 evans, this project will represent another unprecedented experience. there will be men and women of calendar representing 60% of the team. clark is a founding member of the construction inclusion week and they also have an internal mentorship program. lastly, cla

and to affirm the ceqa determination and findings. >> thank you, so much. madam clerk. can you call the roll on item 7. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> no. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> supervisor dorsey. >> no. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> there are 9 aye's and 2 nos supervisors safai and dorsey in the decent. >> thank you, madam clerk. this ordinance passes but go ahead move to resin the vote. >> second. >> thank you, it has been a motion to reas i understand the vote by stefan and he safai. fa madam clerk on the motion. >> mr. president can you do that without objection. >> thank you. and the vote is rescinded and we will call for the roll. >> all right. on item upon 7. supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> no. >> supervisor stefani. >> no. >> walton. >> no. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> approximate supervisor dorsey. >> no. >> supervisor mandelman.

two small housekeeping items for consideration, first, in your ceqa finding motion, attachment a under section 6, on the second bullet, the dollar amount referenced and van ness market affordable housing fee is erroneous. it should be $8 million. a little note that the section 415 fee is correct. second note is page 17 of the plan, exhibit b, there's a dwelling unit exposure diagram. it is a 309 exception that is in the draft motion before you. so speaking of the motions, there are three action items before you today, but i believe you are not taking action on. updated ceqa findings motion to reflect updated information and updated downtown project authorization. and lastly, updated shadow findings. elevator overrun is required to service the highest floor whereas in the 2017 version, there was no usable open space on the roof deck. with the addition of that, we had to have elevator to service the highest floor and that's why we need the overrun. in summary, the planning department still recommends approval of this project. department still finds the modified project is on balance and

to affirm the planning ceqa determination and to adopt other wreck sit findings.o the sale agreement as stated. >> thank you, so we'll take the same item same call this resolution adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 35. >> clerk: item 35 resolution to approve the issuance in sale of revenue by the california enterprise development authority in an amount not to exceed 7.5 million. to be owned and operated by the progress foundation the california nonprofit benefit corporation. >> thank you, madam clerk, i don't see anybody on the roster so we'll take it--this a adopted unanimously. >> clerk: item number 36, tax exempt obligation by the development authority for 40 million to finance or refinance various to be owned or operated by college of the arts. >> thank you, i don't see anyone on the roster so we'll take the same call some roster, this adopted unanimously. item resolution to retro active authorize public works to accept and expand 42 million dollars caltrans. in support of the south of mashlgt street nursery project through june 30th, 2023 and

to affirm the planning ceqa determination and to adopt other wreck sit findings.o the sale agreement as stated. >> thank you, so we'll take the same item same call this resolution adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 35. >> clerk: item 35 resolution to approve the issuance in sale of revenue by the california enterprise development authority in an amount not to exceed 7.5 million. to be owned and operated by the progress foundation the california nonprofit benefit corporation. >> thank you, madam clerk, i don't see anybody on the roster so we'll take it--this a adopted unanimously. >> clerk: item number 36, tax exempt obligation by the development authority for 40 million to finance or refinance various to be owned or operated by college of the arts. >> thank you, i don't see anyone on the roster so we'll take the same call some roster, this adopted unanimously. item resolution to retro active authorize public works to accept and expand 42 million dollars caltrans. in support of the south of mashlgt street nursery project through june 30th, 2023 and

where we were responsible we would also be add here to ceqa. those projects -- i would expect although we have the authority to potential low to -- execute without through the commission and board process. i would expect we bring those through the city and board process. city owned land is a different circumstance. we need to directly come ploy as opposed a contract term. community interests take a different form. >> i understand seems to be represented you were able to stay up front in rfo you needed 90 days or less that worked. >> yes, >> you could continue to use that as a practice and if was impedament you could show it has been a major problem i don't see it we don't have to keep going back and forth i'm trying to avoid it being a problem where we lose opportunity and ends up with a less affordable program. >> so. i heard -- director hail saying that they lost bidders in the process. >> we approved 2 contracts. >> i understand that. i'm -- what because they said up front they needed 90 day in this recent incident i did not hear her say the

item 29 is an ordinance amending the planning code to permit mohcd and to affirm the ceqa determinations and to make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we will take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 30 to 32 together. >> clerk: items 30 through 32 are two resolutions that determine the status of two liquor licenses. item 30 is a premise to premise transfer of a type 21 off sale general liquor license to bitter badger, doing business as soda popinskis, located at 1548 california street, and item 31 is a residence loose determining that the issuance of a type 64 special on sale general theater liquor license to thelostchurch.org,, inc. , located at 665 chestnut street, and to impose conditions on the license. 32 is a resolution determining that the premise to premise person to person transfer of a type 21 off sale general beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license to zeid samir batshoun, doing business as north beach

i question the environmental and ceqa concerns that i also listed last in the last meeting. that was wind impacts, shadow and public parks, below market rate house and ceqa impacts of tnc. my occurrence i put them in the record for consideration. thank you for listening. >> thank you commissioner moore. i will say i started taking notes i did fall off at the end the topics you discussed i would be interesting hear progress staff are height how we heard about despairs exiting. and occurrence around that as well as the bathroom layout and unit layout. there may be other items you would like to respond to staff or the vpns and a points on the sa laterium they can be part of open space it is having a roof where a roof deck would not. solarrium. yes , i was degree my best to listen from the comments and take a list here. regarding height. the height and bulk limit is 400 feet. the finished roof height of the proposal is 399 and 7 inches it is within the height and bulk lim. where things get squirrel and he we unpack technical jargon section 260 provides exemptions for above the l

bidding is impractical and not public interest affirming the planning department determination under ceqating findings the sale of the property is consistent with the general plan and planning code. and authorizing the puc general manager and or city director of property to execute documents make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of the resolution and authorize puc general manager or director of property to enter into any additions amendments or other modifications to the sale agreement that do not materially decrease the benefit of the city with respect to the property nor increase the obligations or liability of either puc or the city and necessary or adviseable to complete the transaction contemplated in the sale agreement to effect wait the purpose and intent of the resolution. members joining remotely and wish to comment please call 415-655-0001. press star 3 to enter the speaker line. the system will indicate you raised your hand and when the system indicates you have been unmute td is queue to begin comments. madam chair. >> thank you, and i believe mayb

we advertised for the construction ceqa at the end of 2021.ill be an evaluation of real-time costs the ceqa is looking to maximize opportunities for local contractors. finally, we received three proposals from clark construction, web core buildings and one more. here are the results of the process with clark construction in the high four. we request your approval to award the contract to clark construction in an amount not to exceed $260.5 million for a duration of approximately seven years. we hope to [indiscernible] -- we will return to the commission for approval to proceed with the project. n.t.p. for construction is scheduled for january 2024. lastly, i would like to introduce clark and the clark teams we'll be working with on this project. building on the success at 5050 evans, this project will represent another unprecedented experience. there will be men and women of calendar representing 60% of the team. clark is a founding member of the construction inclusion week and they also have an internal mentorship program. lastly, clark has a

to map that includes the existing and new dwelling units that constitute the project and affirm the ceqa determination and appropriate findings for both ordinances. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk -- supervisor melgar, my apologies. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor mandelman, should i go first? okay. this is supervisor mandelman's legislation which was debated, amended, discussed for several months at the land, use and transportation committee. we had a very robust engaged process that included many members of this board outside of the land use and transportation committee. i want to thank supervisors peskin and preston for their work in very engaged discussion and their staff worked on this legislation as well. and, you know, i think at the end of the day, we crafted legislation that is a halfway point between, you know, different opinions and perspectives on land use. it will be a change for our city, but one that i feel we must embrace. and i think -- i do think that making small steps in progress is better than making no progress at all. i have a minor amendment that i n

the ceqa involves the environmental work of the configation changes resulting from the engine ooerg work including the phasing plan and changes to the fourth and towns ends station and the track reduction within the tunnel. the base line budget is a new budget that take into accounts the updated design other project costs, and program reserve informed bite qualitative risk assessment, peer review and the project delivery managed you will consider short low. and applying an updated annual cost escalation. these tasks are in process and will continue over summer and fall months leading to board action in february next year. that action is our request to enter the engineering phase under the capitol investment program that is the next step in the federal transit administration's program fta engaged with tgpa the project experience in reviewing the vol unanimous of documentation and plans that we are appropriate nothing our current project development phase. including the neuroprogram dj budget and circumstantial evidence. this concludes my presentation on the accelerated work plan and avail

were published, staff noticed and error in the draft resolution stating the ordinance is exempt from ceqand the ordinance stated in the staff report is that it is not a project in ordinance 150 section c sub section two because it would not direct a change in the environment. if the future, it would require separate environmental review. this would be corrected in the final declaration for you. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance because it helps to protect and support our most vulnerable population. specifically this ordinance where safe overnight parking would be permitted where there is rising particular homelessness. additionally extending the date would provide home business owners another two years to respond to licensing delays. >> now i will ask supervisor safai to speak to this ordinance. >> supervisor safai: thank you, commissioners. i previously asked to allow for the safe parking for staffing in the upper yard. we provided space for over 30 vehicles, 24 hour security, improved lighting, electricity, bathrooms, access to showers and pota

our solicitation, award a contract or identify a contractor to award the contract to complete the ceqa permitting requirements before this contract -- contract -- amendment, we can terminate that. >> that's if this led to a different entity and the city decided to terminate, we wouldn't need a reason to do that. >> correct. >> thank you. let's open up public comment. >> those wishing to speak and joining in person, there's one person, if you would like to speak, line up now. if you're in the virtual queue, call 415-655-0001 and meeting id is 24873376281. press pound twice much once connected press star three to enter the speaker line. for those in the queue, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you can begin comments. looks like we have two listeners and one person in the queue. mr. cue, please put that caller forward. >> can you hear me now? >> yep. >> david again. i think the last time today. so i have spoken on prior related files, obviously, it's important to have refuse collection services for the city and various departments at all locations. it's not

identify all of the actual projects in the bond because we're not allowed to if they're not cleared by ceqa. obviously, we had a clear five-year capital plan. it will be helpful to forecast which projects are most likely to be impacted, so we could may be reassess our priorities. i think there's been some misconceptions about this about potrero yard and what this means. i'm hoping staff can respond to that. director mcguire, do you want to address that? >> which part, the direction campaign projects are at risk? >> director lai: that and this doesn't meanwhile property taxes will be lower. clarify to the public what this means. >> i believe that's the correct description. if you like me to get into the potrero discussion, [ indiscernible ] , can discuss more. we'll be happen to come -- that's something -- >> director lai: brief direct response to that particular question might be caused given the news without getting in the session. >> thank you, director lai. i'm the acting chief financial officer. the potrero yard project, we give you an update two months ago. we're in negotiations with t

our solicitation, award a contract or identify a contractor to award the contract to complete the ceqa permitting requirements before this contract -- contract -- amendment, we can terminate that. >> that's if this led to a different entity and the city decided to terminate, we wouldn't need a reason to do that. >> correct. >> thank you. let's open up public comment. >> those wishing to speak and joining in person, there's one person, if you would like to speak, line up now. if you're in the virtual queue, call 415-655-0001 and meeting id is 24873376281. press pound twice much once connected press star three to enter the speaker line. for those in the queue, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you can begin comments. looks like we have two listeners and one person in the queue. mr. cue, please put that caller forward. >> can you hear me now? >> yep. >> david again. i think the last time today. so i have spoken on prior related files, obviously, it's important to have refuse collection services for the city and various departments at all locations. it's not

for generations we have seen discretionary review and ceqa abused to kill new housing.d and desperate decision to need a charter amendment to bypass some reviews, i'm excited about the affordable homes now amendment and i hope that the counter bill that supervisor chan peskin are co-sponsoring does not make it to the ballot, i think it will confuse voters and unlikely to have an impact on the badly needed housing supply that we need. >> your time -- >> thank you for taking the time to listen. >> thank you. next caller. >> this is sue hester. i urge you to support supervisor chan's affordable housing production act. please vote it out of committee. the maneuver to counter it by redefining of affordable and to basically be migratory housing is unacceptable. people have struggled to build affordable housing in san francisco for decades, and we are doing it. affordable housing developers, real affordable developers exist in san francisco. they have a struggle against mayor who is not supportive of those efforts, but supervisors don't vote, keep this on the ballot, put it on

historic context changed since ceqa review since 2015 when there was not historic district in this community. since, the diamond and elizabeth street historic district identified as a district as part of a survey by planning. not only is this property within that district, but it was identified as a criminalitior to the district. potential impacts were never evaluated. issue ajs of expired permit 2, 227 days after it was approved was unlawful and beyond dbi's authority. the permit was beyond the extension of limitation and canseled by operation of law when the sponsor, sproois twice, failed to extend at this time way this permit can be legally issued with a new application and new approval. this project is why extensions are limited. overnight past 6 years a new building code was adopted. new historic district identifyd and a new public hearing requirement was enacted. despite this, dbi revived a cancelled permit without review under current standards or input from the communities. city takes the public participation processes seriously. weave request the appeal be grantsd and the permit rev