a complete environmental impact report and that that they've studied all the relevant issues under sequa and that this project should move forward. okay. so opponents, though, of the project, they have reacted to this bill's passage and the fact that it's on the governor's desk now saying that the legislation effectively rewards the university of california for what it calls its blatant failure to comply. at the most basic level, with the heart of the california enviro mental quality act. the evaluator of alternatives for a project. but you say that they really didn't need to seek alternatives. well, the university needs to build on all the nine sites and more that they have identified. and the uc berkeley has the lowest ratio of beds for students of any campus in the whole system. that's a huge impact on our city and region's housing market. they have looked at alternative sites. they need to build on those sites. they also need to build on people's park and ultimately sequa is a law that was passed by the legislature. it is the right of the legislature to amend the law to clarify the l

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

we'll give a short presentation summarizing the rate order with an updated sequa exemption for the board's consideration today. so as a quick recap, so proposition f allows anyone affected by the rates or proposed rates to file a written objection to the refuse rates. administrator order. there were 220 written objections filed with our office and were considered and address at the last refuse rate board hearing on july 24th, 2023. because of some technical issues, some ratepayers were unable to comment on the objection remotely. so this agenda item continues in part was continued in part to give those ratepayers another opportunity to make comment. so as a recap, some of the major themes from the objections included and objections to the two rate increases in general, 75.9% of response respondents objected to any rate increase. the most cited reason was the fact that recology had already raised rates in january 2023. 9.5% of responses commented on the service issues. the most common reason was related to missed pickups or consistency of pickups. and lastly, 8.5% of responses supported som