the assessment is included in the ceqa record. as we always remind our commission, because they have to approve the water supply assessments, that approval of the assessment is not an approval of the proposed project. it's merely delivering that document to the planning commission. and the law requires that the governing body for the agency, the water supply agent, do it so everybody is clear on the record what the water supply assessment says. and which prompt projects require an assessment? it's projects of a substantial size that require water supply assessments. now, we have had to change our water supply assessment approach in san francisco within the last year due to an action by the state water resources control board to adopt the water quality control plan, which in effect would require more water to be left in the river and it would have a significant impact on our supply. so that's something that we are working hard on now. we and other water agencies and the state are in discussion on voluntary agreements that may need

and so that, you know, this would be a -- there would be many opportunities through that ceqa process, also, i think to partner with the outcome of this, the cultural heritage district, as well. things that you guys have mentioned already, educational, heritage displays, all of those could be done in coordination with ceqa process for archaeological and tribal process review. >> thank you for being put on the spot. why don't we go ahead and open this up for public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on this item? okay. seeing none, i'll close public comment. >> i think there are some. >> i'm sorry? >> yes, there are a few people. >> okay. please step up. you have three minutes, and about 30 seconds before the end, you'll hear a buzzer. please be bold. >> anybody, anybody come forward. >> hello, commissioners. this is ohlone land. my name is melda maldonado. as an immigrant, i came here in the late 70s. by good fortune, i ended up being very close and working at the native american center at 221 valencia. this was many moons ago. the people came from all nations at that t

we also initiated and adopted ceqa findings yesterday. that was unanimous approval. we are here today after a long time also a lot of hard work by the entire city family. this has been a contribution from many city agencies, not only the planning department, obviously the mayor's office of housing and community development, and the department in the department of building inspection and the office of the city attorney. we couldn't have done this without their support and the assistance of the city attorney. there are too many people here to mention that have contributed to this, but i would like to single out a few of those. versus andrew perry who will be giving you the presentation today. it is hard enough to thoughtfully and diligently reveal one project let alone dozens of them and one entitlement. andrew has done an exemplary job in preparing for this hearing and taking over and mastering the subject. also kristin jensen who has been our lead in the city attorney's office. without her support we never could have achieved this. i am tremendously impressed by the

>> under ceqa, every time there is a project that has significant impact in the environment, when the agency is going to first approve the project, findings must be made, and the statute mandates what kind of findings you have to say. basically, you have to go through what you studied in -- in the e.i.r. and why you could not mitigate them. and then, it's a finding of considerations that says despite these projects, the impact to the city is such that we want to go ahead and approve these projects. so usually, you don't see that because in a normal course of action, the planning commission has the e.i.r. and has some approval before it and approves the findings and goes ahead and does the approvals. but because of this project is first before you this should be the first approvals when there's multiple approvals. so it was 35 a while ago, but no approvals were taken, so you have the first approval. so before the city acts, this is the first action on the project. but then any other city parties that take action on this, including the planning commission and the board will rely on the

the project is exempt from ceqa as a class 1 exemption. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor? >> hi. i'm a little nervous. this is the first time i've done this. i'm the owner of skin on market. it is a 340 square foot retail space. the name of the store is skin on market. we are not doing business as dermalogica. when we moved into the space, we had no signage. we got a permit for the wording skin on market, then we got a quote, the company was helping us expedite the permits and those things. it came out so expensive we couldn't afford the sign. so by the time we got the money to make the sign, it was expiring. so went to the building department, renewed the permit, showed them that we were not, even though our company is skin on market, we were putting the name dermalogica on the wall because the brand is really popular. we carry the brand in our store, similar to a grocery store that would put a sign up that says coca-cola. that's why we chose to use dermalogica. we got permission from the

property reconveyed to the city through the port through the india basin public trust change through the ceqa determination and adopt the appropriate findings. >> president yee: okay. we are now sitting as a committee of the whole. does the district 10 supervisor, supervisor walton, wish to make opening remarks? >> supervisor walton: just a real brief statement, president yee. i do appreciate everyone being here for the hearing, and we will hear public comment, upon which after the committee of the whole, i will be pushing to move item 37 back to land use committee. >> president yee: so -- okay. thank you. do any of the department staff wish to make any comments? i don't see anybody coming up, so are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? all speakers on this item will be allowed two minutes each. seeing none, public comment for this item is closed. [gavel]. >> president yee: supervisor walton, would you like to go ahead and make your motion? >> supervisor walton: yes. i'd like to move that item 37 be sent back to land use committee. >> president yee: so before we tak

the housing code to revise the requirements for heating in residential rental units and affirming the ceqa determination. >> president yee: okay. colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, please call item number 46. >> clerk: item 46 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require an annual report analyzing the fit between housing needs associated with job growth by wages in san francisco and housing production by affordability in the city. >> president yee: colleagues, can we take this item -- >> clerk: mr. president, you have a -- someone on the roster. >> president yee: oh, supervisor mar? sorry. >> supervisor mar: thank you, president yee. i just wanted to make some remarks on this item. this legislation will require the planning department to produce an annual jobs housing fit report, providing important new data and analysis to inform our city's efforts to truly address the housing affordability crisis in a more thoughtful, strategic, and impactful w

in the ceqa analysis that you are doing, what are you assuming about the use of recycled water? >> so in our ceqa analysis, again, at least for the larger projects, we rely on the water supply assessments that sfpuc conducts for the projects. those assessments do divide out by potable and nonpotable demand as well as the on-site nonpotable supply for projects, all those larger projects are subject to the city's nonpotable ordinance. so we do account for nonpotable use in that analysis. >> that's consistent with the amount of supply projected by the puc? >> it is. so the supply numbers that we are looking at in urban water management plan are focused on the potable supply. and so we net out the potable versus nonpotable in comparing them with the projected demand. >> okay. so forgive me, i have many questions. so first let me start off by saying mr. richie, i am a big, big fan of the puc. and you in particular. thank you so much for everything that you do for our city. and you do it very well. so thank you. from the get-go. so, you know, my first set of questions is about our bus

residential units to have two or more bedrooms to eliminate three bedroom requirements to affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> president yee: colleagues, same house, same call? without objection, the ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, please call the next item. >> item 16 is ordinance to amend chapter 19b of the administrative code governing the city's acquisition, retention and use of surveillance technology and to allow the use under certain conditions to preclude legal relief for alleged violations that the city timely cured following notice of the violation and to authorize the city administrator to adopt implementing standards and restrictions that guide the departments in compliance. >> president yee: same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 17. >> item 17 is ordinance to amend the administrative code that governs the process implemented by various departments. >> president yee: colleagues, same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is finall

if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's been a motion to approve the ceqa findings, approval the development agreement and approve the master conditional use authorization with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, i believe there is a desire through the chair to take item 22 out of order. staff is still not here. >> president melgar: yeah. we may take the next -- so i see a lot of folks here for item 22. i would like to take it out of order next, but the staff is not here, and i think the executive director is not here, either -- okay. so -- but the staff is not here yet, so we're going to hear the next item, but then, you're next. is that okay? >> clerk: right. so we'll take up -- item 17 has been continued to december 19, placing us on item 18 for case number 2016-003994 cua at 55 belcher, conditional use -- excuse me, folks, if you are leaving or staying for that matter, if you could do so quietly, we would appreciate it. excuse me, folks, we do have other business to attend to. so

responses, and proposed revisions to the draft waterfront plan and draft project description for the ceqa environmental review process. >> good afternoon, president brandon, members of the commission and staff and audience members. my name is dianne. i'm here to give you an informational presentation on the public comments that were received on the draft waterfront plan, which was published in june of this year, earlier this summer. and the response work that's been done, this staff report, is quite lengthy so i maybe apologize in advance but i think that we had a really great engagement with the community to seek their comments and their perspectives and some of the revisions that we've made in the plan to address those. so, in terms of public comments that were received, since june 2019, up through october, we received comments in these three key categories. we had an online survey and public comment opportunity and that was a main entree for people to be able to review the plan as well as leave their comments with us. we had 18 public meetings, community meetings including a public boa

, section 101.1, and that the transaction contemplated by the ena is not defined as a project under ceqa guidelines, sections 15378 and 15060(c)2, subject to city's discretionary approval after the completion of environmental review; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of the ena and this resolution, as defined herein. >> thank you. before you is a property across the street on grove. the city owns a t-shaped property consisting of 240 vanness, 155 and 165 grove street. about 9,000 square feet. the two buildings that are improved on the site have been deemed not historical, are registered in the vacant abandoned yielding program and are generally unsafe from seismic performance standpoint and are not occupied. the garden was located at 1625 grove street i was a collaboration between the city and two nonprofits. currently it is unused today. all of the properties were declared surplus in 2015. in 2016, the analyzation of suitability for development as 100% affordable housing, pursuant to the surp

considered the ordinances allowing for the development at 3332 alaska street as well as the cu and ceqa appeal. the proposed project is a mixed use project with 744 dwelling units 3500 square feet of he retail and childcare. the planning commission certified on september 5, 2019. while the appellant raised 18 concerns the main item was the claim they failed to review potential design modifications to decrease it's hoss toric use impact. they assert one of the alternatives should be approved instead of the project. the department maintained the community alternatives were considerably like the alternatives discussed and the alternatives could not be built and would not achieve the units desired. public comment during the hearing centered around concerns of the tree removal at the project site and its impact on climate changes and concerns over the type of retail use permitted and the allowable hours of operation. proponents supported a community alternative endorsed by the laurel heights improvement association. regarding the tree removal and how that would exacerbate climate change staf

and limited ceqa exemptions for public transportation projects so that bill 50 land-use impacts are not considered significant for these projects, mitigating the additional time and cost for these projects as a result. the t.a. staff, including director chang and public policy managers analysed model transportation incentive programs that could be expanded or created to provide adequate resources for public transit improvements alongside housing development. they are available for questions about these potential opportunities. fellow commissioners, i believe this resolution affirms our shared commitment to good planning and better transportation and i urge you to support it today. thank you. >> thank you. are there any questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none, there are a number of individuals who like to testify on this. i have some speaker cards. we will open it up to public comment. [calling names] first speaker, please. >> good morning, my name is jeffrey. i am a resident in the outer sunset. i am supportive of the board of supervisors' vision for bill 50 and the amendm

a historic resources for the purposes of ceqa. we did have a qualified consultant prepare a historic resource evaluation report. a historic evaluation report determined the building was not significant individually under any criteria. staff disagreed with that, and we ultimately made a determination that the building is significant under two criteria, but that it didn't retain enough integrity to be considered historic resource. so we acknowledge that it's significant, but we looked at the existing conditions and took into consideration the changes that have been made, because when we are doing our review for preservation, we have to look at it in its existing condition and not what if. so we determined that there was enough original material that had been moved, there was enough changed that had been made that it no longer retained integrity. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> i too support doing three flats in this area. it adds more housing on the west side. but based upon that brief view of the design, i'm not comfortable

it is higher than ceqa. come on folks. take the ring, do something for your people. you got your out. you don't have to wait for the department of health. you got what you need from the dc circuit of appeals yet you rubber stamp them, rubber stamp them rubber stamp them. what are you doing? >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm jess warner. i'm just want to introduce myself to you because i didn't get to last time and say a few things. i want to say that based on the knowledge that i have that i can share with you the data i have and the tremendous amount of information that many of us have, mr. alberton misleading you tremendously and there's a ton of data i encourage you to read to be fully informed about the truth. so again, i'm here right now because i've been working on this issue partly because i'm also electrically sensitive. i discovered this when i was in grad school at brown for environmental science and i have been aware that i get headaches and can't sleep around wireless. that's why i don't live in san francisco. i came from an hour away. i p

project is still categorized as statutory exempt under ceqa guidelines. i'd like to help illustrate the specialized construction techniques that were used. as mentioned earlier, the project was substantially complete as of october 8, 2019, almost a week in advance of the october 15 official wet weather start date in our area. there's minor site work remaining at this time. the bottom left hand photo illustrates the utilization of a specialized crane and barge configuration which lowered what you can see as a knife gate valve into a dry coffer dam pit t. middle photo is a relatively uncommon type of construction. it's called floating and sinking and used throughout the country. but reasonably uncommon in the san francisco bay area. and you can see the pipe floating in the center of the creek temporarily before it's floated and sunk into place. right-hand photo shows the final connection toward the northern connection structure. in summary, i'm here today to request that the support of this committee to approve the revised emergency declaration. thank you.

that's on top of all of the -- like to say for san francisco's purposes -- all of our own ceqa, cu, discretionary review, all of the historic preservation requirements, all of the anti-demolitions we have in place and all the tenant protections we have in place. so i'm not saying there is not more work that needs to be done. i guess it's just a particular approach in terms of stating whether we're in opposition without these amendments, or if we're going to allow this bill to have more time. so i will not be voting in support of the resolution today. but appreciate the spirit of it and what it's trying to do. and the need to protect our sensitive communities and low-income xhujts of communities in particular. >> president yee: senior ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, i will be supporting the resolution and i wanted to thank you, supervisor mar, for your work and nuanced work on this. i want to echo supervisor peskin and say, this is not about opposing the bill, this is about changing the bill so it recognizes that not every single neighborhood, not every single city, not every single communi

>> -- ceqa? >> we are thinking these would apply to nonhistoric resources. they would not apply to article 10 or 11. they could apply to individual resources that are a rated resources, but they would not meet the secretary of the interior standards. we would see them as causing an impact. >> i think where i am going is i would have loved to have this on 450 farrell when we did the e.i.r. and it would be the faÇade alternative. when we looked at the mitigation and all of that, we had some liver age with the developer -- leverage with the developer. this is really, really good. i seen it applying to some a-rated structures. i am happy to see it. the question i have is if it is a housing project and we ask for this, will it trip up any state laws? >> i mean if we are going through the normal review and it would come here. i think the main one would be if it was sd330, we are limited to public hearings. if you are talking to restrictions on development potential, that would also maybe depending on those, yes, what we would do is the retained elements are done.

and provide unlimited exemption from ceqa analysis for public transportation projects such that the changes inland use regulations resulting from the project aren't considered significant. please support this bill. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. first of all, i want to welcome our new supervisor, supervisor preston. we are just elated to have you here. and thank you to commissioner marr for introducing this resolution that is very much shedding the light on the sham that bill 50 is. commissioners, how could we possibly increase population? let's not talk about density, just population. when the entire transit system in the city of san francisco is broken? chair peskin, you brought up the pin issue. that is an absolute embarrassment. we are bringing in a new fleet of cars, nobody has even quality assured them, and almost a year into this, we realize these are grave, serious problems. so are we transit rich? i daresay not. here is the report that came out from our late mayor that commissioned this and it came out in 2018. this is not too long ag

provide three family-size units and structure has been determined to not be a historic resource under ceqa and it meets all applicable requirements and is consistent with the intent of the zoning and this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. >> is this the second hearing up three minutes and any public comment will have one. >> ok, thank you. good evening, commissioners. very briefly, top tunney and the project sponsor asked me to help with the project following the last hearing. the last substantive hearing knowing significant changes needed to be made. and we've achieved that we believe. there was some difficulty in that there were conflicting interests and some people wanted three units and some people wanted two, some didn't like the fourth floor and some were ok with it. in the end, we just followed staff direction. as much as we could zoo and i think completely. there's three units. the fourth floor has been reduced by a third. and flor area and as stated removed the roof deck, expanded the light wells and i would turn to our architect who can

the project has been deemed exempt from ceqa review. while the form states six dwelling units in one building may be exempt, a department policy from 1998 stated that given the urban context of san francisco, there was a negligeable district in environmental impacts in dwelling units whether in six structures or one. it's concluded that six dwelling units in one structure would have an exemption. the project contains a three and a half foot access way into the proposed portion of the lot to be developed. this is the only access to the lot. prior to the submittal of the application, the sponsor conducted a preapplication meeting with the department of building inspection and fire department to ensure it was fees building from a technical and safety standpoint. they signed preapplication meeting notes stating it was feasible. the project sponsor will provide further specifics on the safety measures taken given the limited access. additionally, full review of the project by d.b.i. and fire would occur after the potential planning approval.

this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to san francisco administrative code section 31.04(h). >> this is alex strouder. he's held public sector planning positions for over a decade with experien experience. he has experience in climate resiliency and more. previously he worked for the moren agency development for five years and prior to that for the delta protection commission for seven years. he mastered in landscape planning and architecture from u.c. berkeley. >> thank you for the introduction. alex westoff, department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 202.2, 303, and 754 to establish a cannabis retail use measuring approximately 5,549 square feet in an scpising two-storey building. this site is located at 4012 street which is within the nct3 moderate scale commercial transit district and an 85x height district. the upper storey is currently occupied by offices, while the lower storey served as retail commercial. the project includes cannabis sales on t