and i'm wondering if it actually winds up being sequa that, if i'm not mistaken, sequa is a state law, right? if it's an actual state law that actually winds up causing us to not meet the state housing unit, what do we do about that? i don't know if i'm in favor or oppose the project, but i'm just confused about it. thank you. are there are any other speakers in the chamber on behalf of the appellant? please come up, sir. good afternoon. my name is chu fong. i live at 1165 washington street house next to the project project property. i. i want to let you know, i'm told against this project on behalf or a chinatown community. the chinatown, as you know, is in chinatown area. is where things and there are not too many room for people who have recreation the people who live who live in chinatown, they are most low income, living on a welfare they can't afford. no fancy apartment . most of them are living in a single room residence and in that building, if you have been in some of the building, the air quality is poor. they live in a few. few people live in a little room. they have to inh

and i'm wondering if it actually winds up being sequa that, if i'm not mistaken, sequa is a state law, right? if it's an actual state law that actually winds up causing us to not meet the state housing unit, what do we do about that? i don't know if i'm in favor or oppose the project, but i'm just confused about it. thank you. are there are any other speakers in the chamber on behalf of the appellant? please come up, sir. good afternoon. my name is chu fong. i live at 1165 washington street house next to the project project property. i. i want to let you know, i'm told against this project on behalf or a chinatown community. the chinatown, as you know, is in chinatown area. is where things and there are not too many room for people who have recreation the people who live who live in chinatown, they are most low income, living on a welfare they can't afford. no fancy apartment . most of them are living in a single room residence and in that building, if you have been in some of the building, the air quality is poor. they live in a few. few people live in a little room. they have to inh

and affirming the planning department determination under sequa. madam chair, thank you. and i would like to make the motion to move this item to full board with recommendation second by supervisor ronan. and may i have roll call, please? and on that motion seconded by member ronan, that this ordinance be forwarded to the july 11th full board with a positive recommendation and vice chair. i remember i, i remember ron and ron and i remember walton walton. i chair chan i chan i, we have five eyes and thank you. the motion passes. and with that, please call item eight and nine together. yes item number eight is a resolution approving amendment number five to grant agreement between the office of economic and workforce development and the san francisco tourism improvement district management corporation for management of the downtown. welcome ambassador program to increase the grant amount by approximately 5.1 million for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 21.4 million to increase the term for one year and eight months for a new term from july 1st, 2021 through jun

and affirming the planning department determination under sequa. madam chair, thank you. and i would like to make the motion to move this item to full board with recommendation second by supervisor ronan. and may i have roll call, please? and on that motion seconded by member ronan, that this ordinance be forwarded to the july 11th full board with a positive recommendation and vice chair. i remember i, i remember ron and ron and i remember walton walton. i chair chan i chan i, we have five eyes and thank you. the motion passes. and with that, please call item eight and nine together. yes item number eight is a resolution approving amendment number five to grant agreement between the office of economic and workforce development and the san francisco tourism improvement district management corporation for management of the downtown. welcome ambassador program to increase the grant amount by approximately 5.1 million for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 21.4 million to increase the term for one year and eight months for a new term from july 1st, 2021 through jun

section 31.08 f as to the sequa approval action that this is the approval action under chapter 31 and the appeal rights that members of the public have to the board of supervisors with regard to exemptions. in addition, the exemption determination made by the planning department was dated june. i'll pause. i'll i really need to be heard. you can confer with counsel after and i'll need some additional time to make up the seek would determination made by the planning department in case number 2020 3-005364 env was dated june 13th, which was prior to the issuance of the draft rate order or the proposed rate order that was issued. this past friday. so i believe that the proposed rate order should be resubmitted to the planning department to ensure that the uses of the funds under the rate continue to comply with the applicable code. section 2188 and sequel guidelines section 15 273. in order for that determination to be current based on the latest recommendation, there are a number of other items that i could speak to, but i certainly can't. within two minutes i've suggested some edits to

and third, no environmental review was completed under sequa. the legal conclusions that flow from this are that there was a mistake in the interpretation, as the appellants have detailed. second, this is a reduction of allowable residential development capacity in violation of the housing crisis act. third, it would lead to violations of the hra because it's not an objective standard. and fourth was violated. thank you. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please, sir, if you could fill out a speaker card when you're done. thank you. thank you, president swig. commissioners thank you for the privilege of being able to speak with you this evening. i'm here to let you know my name is david miller. i'm a native san franciscan, and i would encourage you to support and agree with what your zoning administrator has said regarding the interpretation. i think the graphs that he used were quite telling in showing the 37, frankly and respectfully, the absurdity of the appellants position here, that if that position were to be permitted to carry the day, i

okay and i also wonder environmental thing, the sequa and so there's two discretion reviewing. there's a few others they missed a deadline otherwise that you would have 3 or 4 and some of them are going to speak on the phone. okay. if we well, we have so many interests opposing it. you know, i just recommend maybe you guys want to hear more. and then this section for other people. but anyway, the school there with a retaining wall. i think you have seen pictures of it. and anyway , the imposing building here and that's going to cast a giant shadow and then look at the look at the retaining wall all the way down, going up the hill. so anyway, if you look at the natural disaster like flooding or earthquakes, that's not a safe wall. and besides, there are 29ft wide. i used to own this lot and we have two grand restrictions. i have a grand restrictions on this lot. and then we know family, the famous cimino, they have a granny restriction also. and then freelander ■of limit furniture and he's okay with a special restriction. he built a garage there. freelander anyway, if you just l

department of building inspection by 15% and affirming the planning department determination under sequa members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in person. please wait until public comment is called. and for those joining us remotely, press star three. if you wish to speak on this item, madam chair, thank you. do you have any update for us on the building fee because you did not have a presentation last week. yes this was continued from last week pending a recommendation by the building inspection commission and they heard it and submitted their recommendation to the board yesterday. do you want to elaborate a little bit? sure. the building inspection commission recommended approval of the ordinance. they also noted that they encourage consideration of up to a 20% increase, whereas the original ordinance was 15. and that is a matter before, before you and up to the consideration of the mayor's office. the original sponsor of the ordinance as well . so they're told. so this is just again for the for the discussion. and i think that we must have it's not lik

curbside curbside shared spaces, license fees and affirming the planning department's determination under sequa how members of the public wish to speak on this item and are joining us remotely. if you haven't already done so, press star three. if you wish to enter the speaker line and for those already in the queue, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and there'll be your signal to begin your comments. madam chair, thank you. and supervisor sophia, do you have any comment on this or. yeah, just at a heard loud and clear last time the desire some of the colleague of colleagues on the board here that we would reduce the scope of this. so it would be actually much more of a targeted economic stimulus for the existing businesses and those that might fall into this two year window. so we have circulated amendments and i can pass, if you haven't seen them already. i have it highlighted here in yellow. you can hand it down. chair, please, if they haven't already gotten it. um, so what we do is we make this a two year window, so it's a two year program. they're high