firming the determination ceqa and findings consistency under the planning code. members joining remote and wish to comment press star 3 to enter the line. a prompt will indicate you raised your hand. there will be your signal to comment. >> thank you, mr. hellipa. president supervisor peskin would you like to share >> my apologies i'm not ready for this and would like to make a motion to continue to the call of the chair and hopeful low i will get my act together quickly and ask you to schedule it in the not too distant future. why sounds good. let's take public comment on this item. >> in dam chair. those present here wish to comment on the continuance of the item. line and up upon for those on hold remote. press star 3 and continue to wait until you have been unmuted. no one person and we have no one in the queue. >> public comment is closed. and so, let's vote on the motion. >> and on that motion that is ordinance be continued to the call of the chair vice chair preston. >> aye. >> member supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> chair melgar. >> aye. >> we have three aye

the project will not have a significant will impact under ceqa. appeal should be denied the department concluded eligible for exemption and this there are no unusual circumstances flult environmental impact. we ask that the exemption upheld. i'm here for questions. >> thank you. were there questions for the projects experience or representatives. supervisor engardio. i have a question for planning. you have i way to show your slides again one slide i wanted to electric at the slide that showed the picture of of the appellate's house with rendzerring of the new construction next door >> and supervisor engardio there is also in the. planning department's response, on page prosecute 9 and 10. as it relates to shadow. information in the record as to the shadow that is already created by the extent 4 store building owned by the 98 is set fourth on page 9. >> great that slide was the one i wanted look at. can we look at that. the question is for planning. that the appellate's house to the right of that rendzerring? yes. that's correct. any difference in

ordinance removes ceqa impacts. i like to stress had is not exempting from ceqa whether or not the project as ceqa impacts not used to determine eligible for program. planning commission recommended approval with modificationos june 20 of 23 and proposed 2 modifications which are in the proposed amendments you will see today. the exemptions from section 317 demmingo controls should include tht units not had tenability buy out in the left 5 years and amended so the front setback controls require 15 foot when the pattern is 15 feet. that's all i have. >> yea. >> thank you and i can now go through the amendments if you like or if you have questions i'm happy to answer those. >> we have the amendments first, colleagues, please? >> okay. >> go ahead. >> okay. i hope you are comfortable. on page one, lines 9 and 10 we will add the language in the areas outside the priority equity special use district for learning lot developments. then on page 4, lines 1 and 2, adding language to identify our affordable housing requiremen

it is a complete ceqa finding where as the earlier one was the error that got in there. thank you to commissioner stacy for catching that. >> thank you. >> okay. >> okay. so we would like to delete where as amendment 5 does not continue a project under california vipiral quality act guidelines. section 15. 378. because there would be no physical change in the environment. >> yea. >> yes and where as number 8 starts with this line and continues with more appropriate detail. >> okay perfect. can we are public comment. thank you mr. richie. >> members of the public when wish to ment on item 7, press star 3 to speak. speakers will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds remaining. good afternoon. nicole. i want to express support for the proposed recommend staff action on this important project. thank you very much. >> thank you. anyone else present? do we have callers? we have one caller. i unmuted you you have two minutes. >> thank you. peter, tuolumne river trust. i don't have a problem with this project based on environmental concerns. and some of my colleagues feel it is

department ceqa review. >> if it was a dramatic change such as using just the facade and building a building behind it, that could potentially go through a eir process? >> yes. potentially. >> commissioner wright. >> i wanted to add to that for clarity and mr. secray can chime in, i think that the landmarking review is--strictly a review of the building and the resource and then any project that comes thereafter may have adverse effects or impacts to the historic features of the building but that is all evaluated and not in the vacuum? >> correct. >> thank you. we have a motion and second. >> indeed we do. on the motion to continue items as proposed. -- [roll call] >> so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously 5-0. place under the regular calendar. item 7, case 2023-005133crv. acoa/mpta delegation agreement. this is 2 year update for your consideration to adopt amendments. >> good afternoon commissioners. jonathan vimr, department staff. the item before you is readoption of the scope of work agreement. a core function of the preservation program. as reminder and for the publi

it is a complete ceqa finding where as the earlier one was the error that got in there. thank you to commissioner stacy for catching that. >> thank you. >> okay. >> okay. so we would like to delete where as amendment 5 does not continue a project under california vipiral quality act guidelines. section 15. 378. because there would be no physical change in the environment. >> yea. >> yes and where as number 8 starts with this line and continues with more appropriate detail. >> okay perfect. can we are public comment. thank you mr. richie. >> members of the public when wish to ment on item 7, press star 3 to speak. speakers will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds remaining. good afternoon. nicole. i want to express support for the proposed recommend staff action on this important project. thank you very much. >> thank you. anyone else present? do we have callers? we have one caller. i unmuted you you have two minutes. >> thank you. peter, tuolumne river trust. i don't have a problem with this project based on environmental concerns. and some of my colleagues feel it is

the project will not have a significant will impact under ceqa. appeal should be denied the department concluded eligible for exemption and this there are no unusual circumstances flult environmental impact. we ask that the exemption upheld. i'm here for questions. >> thank you. were there questions for the projects experience or representatives. supervisor engardio. i have a question for planning. you have i way to show your slides again one slide i wanted to electric at the slide that showed the picture of of the appellate's house with rendzerring of the new construction next door >> and supervisor engardio there is also in the. planning department's response, on page prosecute 9 and 10. as it relates to shadow. information in the record as to the shadow that is already created by the extent 4 store building owned by the 98 is set fourth on page 9. >> great that slide was the one i wanted look at. can we look at that. the question is for planning. that the appellate's house to the right of that rendzerring? yes. that's correct. any difference in

have been dealing with preservation group as well and monopolied out a press to move through that ceqa process on the project, which is great. we commissioned 2 cost estimators to write us through the process. and to enengage with the community in near term. you heard that cost and markets are changing. so i will leave it there unless you have questions. thank you. >> thanks for all the presentations. like to open up to the committee. >> since are there, i know this completion 2027. what did dh slide say? completion of planning? the goal. >> no the goal is to complete thislet 2027. early 2028. a 30 month construction window. we are talk with contractors and as we develop. time is money. we are trying to shorten this window. 2 years to 30 months is the window here. but we are aggressively moving forward plan to go in the design or phase of the project. will help us refine it. >> thank you. >> i got a -- couple summary slides we got cut off a bit. >> do that. i will ask the question, okay. this is for scott mur an this is quick. you said this bids on -- contracts you issued came in over

the colombo market arch within sidy walton square, 600 sfrunt street as a landmark and affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> roll call. >> melgar aye. peskin, aye. preston, aye. ronan, aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. dorsey, aye. engardio, aye. mandelman, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed first reading. next item, please. >> item 17, resolution to initiate a amendment to the landmark designation of the san francisco fire station number 44 located at 1298 girard street. >> same house same call, the resolution is adopted. next item. >> item 18, resolution approving authorize a groont of two easements on city property located at 4840 mission street. the first consist of 198 square feet of land at the northwest edge of the parcel for electrical equipment and the second easement of 395 square feet of land at the northern edge of parcel for gas equipment between the city and pacific gas and electric for the purpose of providing electrical and gas utilities for 100 percent affordable housing at no cost for term until pg&e s

fees, indexing deferral and wavers and adopt the san francisco city wide nexus analysis to affirm the ceqa determination and to make the appropriate findings. item 8 is the ordinance that amends the planning and administrative codes for development impact fee reductions and also affirms the ceqa determination making the appropriate findings. >> on those two items, a roll call, please. >> on item 7 and 8-- [roll call] >> there are 10 ayes and 1 no with supervisor preston voting no. >> those ordinances are finally passed. madam clerk, please read items 9-11 together. >> items 9-11 are ordinances that authorize the settlement of lawsuits filed by the following-by the city and the people of the state of california against walgreens for item 9 in the amount of $229 million. item 10, authorize settlement of the laut filed by the city and people of the state of california against cephalon inc. teva farm pharmaceuticals for $28.8 million. authorize settlement of the lawsuit against allergen finance llc for approximately $12.9 million. these lawsuits pertain to allegations pertaining to a public nu

. >> we made a request that ceqa be waived, the california environmental equality act be waived, and work, because also tributaries had some damage due to flooding. he signed an executive order for exactly that. >> reporter: the executive order has allowed repairs to begin on levees across the state. the job here is scheduled to be completed in just a few weeks. but some activists are worried rebuilding the levee so quickly without any of the environmental regulations in place could cause problems in the future. artie valencia is with restore the delta, an organization that works to protect and restore waterways across the area. >> in our eyeyes, we think, ok it's not ---- wewe think that very vital to go through the proper legislative process of -- that we have in the system in order to properly conduct the project. because you need to know what the long-term effects are. >> reporter: artie says she understands the need to keep people safe but just wants these projects done in a way where they're also safe for the environment. mark strudley back out at the pajaro river site told me

the colombo market arch within sidy walton square, 600 sfrunt street as a landmark and affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> roll call. >> melgar aye. peskin, aye. preston, aye. ronan, aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. dorsey, aye. engardio, aye. mandelman, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed first reading. next item, please. >> item 17, resolution to initiate a amendment to the landmark designation of the san francisco fire station number 44 located at 1298 girard street. >> same house same call, the resolution is adopted. next item. >> item 18, resolution approving authorize a groont of two easements on city property located at 4840 mission street. the first consist of 198 square feet of land at the northwest edge of the parcel for electrical equipment and the second easement of 395 square feet of land at the northern edge of parcel for gas equipment between the city and pacific gas and electric for the purpose of providing electrical and gas utilities for 100 percent affordable housing at no cost for term until pg&e s

historic resources and presidency case of the home sf projects it would have i review but if it violates ceqa, so what. this would, ply to projects pose a menace to parks with shadow and winds. the legislation limits growning the city shrinking set become for pleasants and trees. ignores vacant units. the legislation ignorse people who make live nothing san francisco worthwhile. lee dp mitts income committed to the city give san francisco the character and most live in per minutes the legislation removes the right of inference france to have input when is upon helping the planning out of date in take trickle down with housing. foible low does this legislation help with housing. no. there is in requirement for affordable husband figure those who need it. reject this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. this line is unattended we will circle become. >> hi. i'm am micheal nulty i'm the program director of tenant association coalition and we have problems with this legislation as proposed. we have a problem with the fact it hen um -- it has been given to the public the the

island on taraval on friskth avenue 2 sidewalks shared spaces subject to requirements and affirm the ceqa determination. >> no names. same house, same call the ordinance is passod first reading. next item. >> item 6 an ordinance to acknowledge the treasure island development authority acceptance on a portion of the yerba buena hill top park known as the rock and the authority acceptance of the p improvements for maintenance and liability purposes. dedicating the rocks to public use. designating the property for open space park and park purposes and to adopt property findings. >> same house same call. the upon ordinance is passod first reading. next. >> item 7 resolution to extend and modify zoning controls in resolution 109-22 require a cu authorization for proposed parcel delivery service uses and modify those inter~im controls to apply a parcel deliver service use greater than 10,000 square feet and the definition of parcel delivery services that was in affect as to the effective deaf 109-22 and affirm the ceqa determination and make appropriate findings. thank you. as stated on the age

island on taraval on friskth avenue 2 sidewalks shared spaces subject to requirements and affirm the ceqa determination. >> no names. same house, same call the ordinance is passod first reading. next item. >> item 6 an ordinance to acknowledge the treasure island development authority acceptance on a portion of the yerba buena hill top park known as the rock and the authority acceptance of the p improvements for maintenance and liability purposes. dedicating the rocks to public use. designating the property for open space park and park purposes and to adopt property findings. >> same house same call. the upon ordinance is passod first reading. next. >> item 7 resolution to extend and modify zoning controls in resolution 109-22 require a cu authorization for proposed parcel delivery service uses and modify those inter~im controls to apply a parcel deliver service use greater than 10,000 square feet and the definition of parcel delivery services that was in affect as to the effective deaf 109-22 and affirm the ceqa determination and make appropriate findings. thank you. as stated on the age

fees, indexing deferral and wavers and adopt the san francisco city wide nexus analysis to affirm the ceqa determination and to make the appropriate findings. item 8 is the ordinance that amends the planning and administrative codes for development impact fee reductions and also affirms the ceqa determination making the appropriate findings. >> on those two items, a roll call, please. >> on item 7 and 8-- [roll call] >> there are 10 ayes and 1 no with supervisor preston voting no. >> those ordinances are finally passed. madam clerk, please read items 9-11 together. >> items 9-11 are ordinances that authorize the settlement of lawsuits filed by the following-by the city and the people of the state of california against walgreens for item 9 in the amount of $229 million. item 10, authorize settlement of the laut filed by the city and people of the state of california against cephalon inc. teva farm pharmaceuticals for $28.8 million. authorize settlement of the lawsuit against allergen finance llc for approximately $12.9 million. these lawsuits pertain to allegations pertaining to a public nu

require significant ceqa and long environmental permitting process. so -- it is xivens. over 200 million dollars. >> the pipes the -- the as they are now no long are there they would go down? >> this it is they come over >> water would not flow through them but they are historical significance they may stay. would be there for looks? if that is how we proceed it new >> and so when you think of 2 huh must have been really. it is aloft. the way we do things that seems like it is doable. if we look at going for 100 years or a lot of things that better take into consideration with that 200 million i would assume? might be a better way to go and longer >> yes, our staff agrees they analyze third degree and that is their preferred option. operation maintenance and longevity of a shaft and i tunnel. we are early. looking how to reduce the risk of failure while we plan this project in form it takes. we are trying to see if there is a lower cost pipeline alternative. nought tunnel and shaft other alternative. >> question sns >> i noticed with the moccasin powerhouse with issues a

as part of the process improvement works through the housing element and ceqa streamlining we are consolidating all the applications into one easy application the public can hopefully file when they have a project or question about a building historic status or historic review. this application we go live on september 1 and happy to provide more information to the commission if they so choose, but we wanted to make you aware as well as the public. the second item is follow-up towards request that the commission had earlier on the project at 3555 pacific avenue. i just want to give some more color into the department determination on the specific building. in short, this project was subject to conditional use authorization and also a project that is go tg to plan on demoing it and the building new construction. the planning department did undertake multiple levels of review for this property. we completed a historic resource accessment, one of the many historic reviews we do where we classified to a c. since the project was also proposing demolition, we had the project sponsor or consultant prep

this year hsf bruin the rate setting press using a ceqa server did the base program leverages every year to help set the rates going forward. however, this transification was a task for not only our esa team but finance staff and contract's team. >> also working with human resources and the controller's office to provide employees with the option utilizing a preferred name different than the legal name. for members of our populations including those in our transgender community and alternate name a part of their identity. we are that he want this is moving forward. >> given the complexity involved in our program offerings rule and premiums, communications with members on what is important to them is no easy task example so next i gallon through communication plan. with having to notify over 70,000 families of open enroll am options a one size fits all approach december in the work. i handed jessica or director i couple of goal this is year. one, simple fight message members need to understand open enroll am cape acteds and 2, reduce the paper used to community that message and jessica di

in this case ceqa the california environmental will equality act is a state law requires staffed impacts from governments and make decision of this time for this size we do environmental impact report. it takes 2 years. opportunity and and important things the number and affordable of net new units added in addition to the replace am public housing. so, that will wrap up when the environmental impact report the final impact report is certified boy planning 2 years after an application and would go to a number of other city policy bodies for approval. board of supervisors, major's office and then of course, any approval come become to housing commission. apologies going in the weeds the pin is we have a robust and lengthy approval process in front of us throughout that process we'll continuing to enengage with the residentses and the mount to make sure we are advance being interests as we veterans this project. for now we think the submission of the application is an important step toward securing a center peefts financing for reblgdz the existing public housing. that concludes the presen

supervisor chans attempt to land mark the property and foreclose an opportunity for density bonus, ceqa to move forward and build more housing in the city and there was a hearing continued before the historic preservation today on the basis we were appeal thanksgivinging to move forward with land marking. again the basis for imposing reinstallation of the sign with 18 month system misapplication of the planning code. also, the noe had loose time lines saying work with the planning department. upon i attached several commons i will not bore you. back and forth to negotiate the terms of an abasement schedule. we did not hear back from planning after they asked for resunrised abatement proposal and we thank you no news was good news let's get on work and then the noe converted issued know noe on the basis we never provide a revised abatement schedule. we did. this is noted in exhibits j. which shows we did submit i revised abasement schedule the planning department never responded to. when we point third degree out we appreciate if you rescind this nov we did reply and never heard become f

building code for three or four stories after 1988 with the inspection respect under the california ceqa how will this report (clearing throat) how that ordinance is amended. >> so that he ordinance refers to the existing facade program. >> right. >> that primarily looking at with the is part of a ordinance it is mentioned in there. but no emphasis no guidelines on though to look at that. >> so, i mean, it seems like we should do leveraging it type of what you said owners ignore the requests; right? this ordinance is on for amendment wearing looking at being constructed after 1988 humble opportunity to review specialist finding from the report that requires. >> absolutely. >> the whole thing from those inspections. >> that's correct, yes we're going to take all of that finding from this thing and incorporate into that that new or revised building code section. >> what are some of the suggestions being made from this report? >> and yeah. >> (multiple voices). >> yeah, so the recommendations again tofu can't avoid using staged glass to look at the installation of 1257b8d glass no contact w

the san francisco city planning department also determined the proposed use is compliance with ceqa. in conclusion, staff recommends the port commission to approve the poposed lease for hotaling for operation with tasting room at pier 50 shed b. that concludes my presentation. we have staff from hotaling and i'm here to answer questions you may have. >> thank you jennifer. is there any public comment on this item? this is a action item. i do. >> i make a motion we move the item. >> second. >> thank you. is there any public comment in the room? seeing none. corey, is there anyone on the phone? >> at this time there is no one on the phone wishing to comment on this item. >> thank you corey. public comment is closed. commissioner harrington. >> thank you jennifer. great job. when the (indiscernible) insight us to the opening party. [laughter] i notice the 5 year lease and just item 10a today is for free design work on earthquake improvements for pier 50. is there a high risk, low risk, where is that risk of earthquake issue we are trying to fix while renting it out? >> it is my understa

require significant ceqa and long environmental permitting process. so -- it is xivens. over 200 million dollars. >> the pipes the -- the as they are now no long are there they would go down? >> this it is they come over >> water would not flow through them but they are historical significance they may stay. would be there for looks? if that is how we proceed it new >> and so when you think of 2 huh must have been really. it is aloft. the way we do things that seems like it is doable. if we look at going for 100 years or a lot of things that better take into consideration with that 200 million i would assume? might be a better way to go and longer >> yes, our staff agrees they analyze third degree and that is their preferred option. operation maintenance and longevity of a shaft and i tunnel. we are early. looking how to reduce the risk of failure while we plan this project in form it takes. we are trying to see if there is a lower cost pipeline alternative. nought tunnel and shaft other alternative. >> question sns >> i noticed with the moccasin powerhouse with issues a

the ceqa declaration was received in december of 2021. and in march of this year, we completed all of the programming to determine the sizes and numbers of buildings going for the and those are listing them there. so, we are requesting the approval of the professional service agreement. as the executive architect for architecture and engineering services on the fire training facility. >> thank you. >> item twol a resolution approving a public works agreement with ross architecture, this is a design contract for the new fire training facility on carroll avenue. the agreement is 14. within. not to compete 14.1 million dollars and term of 5 years. the contract can be extend by 2 years. this firm was selected per of a competitive process the top skroerer of 3. we 99 our report the cost of the fire training facility increased in less then and there a year from 210 million dollars last year to 270 million dollars this year. to according to the department to permit delayd that had a cascading delay in escalating delay on the project time line an

the ceqa declaration was received in december of 2021. and in march of this year, we completed all of the programming to determine the sizes and numbers of buildings going for the and those are listing them there. so, we are requesting the approval of the professional service agreement. as the executive architect for architecture and engineering services on the fire training facility. >> thank you. >> item twol a resolution approving a public works agreement with ross architecture, this is a design contract for the new fire training facility on carroll avenue. the agreement is 14. within. not to compete 14.1 million dollars and term of 5 years. the contract can be extend by 2 years. this firm was selected per of a competitive process the top skroerer of 3. we 99 our report the cost of the fire training facility increased in less then and there a year from 210 million dollars last year to 270 million dollars this year. to according to the department to permit delayd that had a cascading delay in escalating delay on the project time line an