understood] clearly from them that really have suffered from the challenges around predictability. and i think by including the exemption that we included for businesses that have less than 20 employees, we're not impacting i think the smallest mom and pop businesses supervisor breed is concerned about and there have been issues the last week-and-a-half about whether we were including the smallest businesses or not. the legislation as it stand currently exempts businesses under 20. so, again hopefully those businesses will not be impacted. but i do think it is important for us to recognize that some of our hardest working and lowest wage workers in our city are janitors and our security guards, deserve some predictable. i am more than happy to, if there are any additional conversations to be had, to think harder about this. that is where i am. with regard to supervisor tang's amendment, we already addressed -- supervisor mar and i agreed we are prepared to

support prioritizing flexibility and the family friendly workplace ordinance in this ordinance. with regard to supervisor wiener's suggestion that we increase the threshold to 20 of the number of businesses in town, that is not something i would have been prepared to support in the land use context in the front of the retail legislation that we voted on earlier today that supervisor mar had authored. but i think when it comes to pre-difficultthctionv ability. certainly the san francisco soup kitchen, these are small home grown business he in san francisco. and the idea that we should treat them as we treat other small businesses it, something i could support. and supervisor breed had suggested some consistency around the prime right of action to do what i know, and

the box legislation what supervisor cohen did last year with the family workplace ordinance. i am supportive of supervisor breed's amendments around [speaker not understood]. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. similarly, i will be supportive of the elimination of the private right of action to be consistent with the other legislation that president chiu just mentioned. and also on supervisor wiener's motion, to create the 20-store threshold from 11 to 20. i think consideration for the smaller chain like the s.f. soup company and the [speaker not understood] copies to me make sense. though our coalition that i've worked closely with felt that the definition of 20 employees, that threshold what capturing the franchises. though wiener's amendment would

further creation another exemption, i'm willing to support that in consideration of the small chains that are locally based and independent, but i believe there are a number that would be impacted by this. but i'm doing my best to listen to what my colleagues are presenting and i think that the motion from supervisor tang also to be consistent with the family friendly workplace ordinance so that if there is a conflict that arises, that that would take precedent because president chiu is the main author of that portion of it and i'll defer to his support for my colleague supervisor tang's motion on that one as well. but i strongly oppose continuing and i also oppose eliminating the hard working janitors and custodians within the retail businesses that have been covering under the formula retail worker bill of rights. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i will withdraw my motion for the removal of contractors for

janitorial and security guards for now. thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. this is just a clarifying question, because i wasn't involved as closely as many of my colleagues were on the debate. so, when we talk about raising the threshold of formula retail to 20 within the boundary lines of the city, i guess i have two questions. one, can we do that? because i know we had considered that in our planning code. the conditional use can be a burden in term of time and cost. we want to support our local chain like coffee. it was my understanding we couldn't privilege one category over another where they were growing. i guess my second question is

worker predictability, i guess it's not clear why we would want to provide workers at our native grown formula retail, less predictability than the ones that were started in other parts of this country. i guess i'm just not sure how it's helping our native grown formula retail. those are two separate questions. i understand the ar about with the cu. i know why that is a burden. i'm not sure why this would be? so, my first question is to the city attorney on whether this is something that we can differentiate from this type of legislation. also the authors, why we should [speaker not understood] other such protection we're affording formula retail worker [speaker not understood]. >> city attorney jon givner. i actually didn't under supervisor wiener's pro poed amendment to single out companies or formula retail

establishments that were initially based in the city like phil's. i think the amendment would increase the threshold to 20 stores, 20 locations worldwide and the reference to the local stores as i understand it was just explaining why you might want to exempt those types of stores from the ordinance okay. i'm sorry, then, that i misheard. the amendment is to change the definition of l formula wide. >> that's right. >> in the case of conditional use [speaker not understood], i understand why we want to cause less burden to lockheed martin lereah tail business. i guess it's not loner why we would want to p give the same protections to workers to work

for a national or nation nailal ~ national chain in the city of san diego. >> our city attorney? supervisor mar? supervisor wiener. >> so, through the chair to supervisor kim, first of all, just to reiterate, even though by way of example [speaker not understood], the amendment, it doesn't change the definition of formula retail. it just changes what it supply to 20 location worldwide whether you started here or not. in term of the rationale for distinction, part-time worker need help and we're trying to strike the right balance. and when we talk about these small chains in term of the

burden on the business and some of the flexibility that they need, that may not be the same as some of the large of the national and international changes. what my advocates of this legislation talk about, they talk about abuses happening in these smaller businesses, talk about the national and multinational. i think it's trying to strike the right balance. it's a pretty small number of business he, but for those it's pretty impactful. >> so, if i may follow through the chair, it would be helpful to kind of get another understanding of the list of businesses that would be added in. without a lot of other arguments, it's not clear why i would want to protect a worker at a phil's coffee.

why wouldn't we want to afford them to get to 35 hours first before they hire another worker. just because you work at phil's and not target and a single mom doesn't mean you're not trying to support your family. formula retail compared to a longer one, i haven't felt that has been a burden to those businesses, to afford their workers as many full-time job along with a predictable. i can understand the argument how conditional use is a burden. but in this casey just don't see why this is a burden ~. i think all of our businesses should want to do this in that we are protecting our workers, i wouldn't want a case moving into the future. i love the small formula retail

chains. but i wouldn't want a bad actor in the future that was abusing their workers and had a loop hold to affording the same protections to their workers. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman. through the chair, the argument that supervisor kim is making about part-time workers and small chains versus large chains, you can make that same logic would apply to extending this legislation to every business including small businesses because a part-time worker is a part-time worker is, everyone has the same challenges and concernsv. the author of the legislation limited these new rights to formula retail i believe precisely taking into account the sort of unique needs of some of our smaller business he

and that there are differing burdens. and we see it also whether it's the health care security ordinance or various worker protection ordinance that we've adopted in san francisco. we have different thresholds. there's always been a recognition that smaller businesses face very different challenges than larger businesses do. and, so, the small businesses are already not part of this legislation and it's really just about where you draw the line. and in my view these smaller formula retail outlets and the planning department actually did compile a list of them in the context of the previous legislation updating and reforming formula retail ordinance. and they are smaller businesses. these are not meganational chains, international chains. and, so, i think this is an

amendment that makes a lot of sense. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair farrell. to supervisor kim's question, many small businesses already provide a high road type employment for their workers many of the smaller chains that we're talking about, we've had good meetings with them and know this, but i think you're right, everyone deserves the rights that are provided by the retail workers bill of rights. president chiu and i are operating win very complex set of we see this piece of legislation will spread around the country. i want to say we pass the our formula retail [speaker not understood], we stuck strong at 11 and the coalition we worked with of small businesses also ensured that we kept that as our definition, but we still were sensitive to the smaller

chains and strategic economic which is the fund that did the study looking at the 1250 firm lereah tail businesses in the city, the number of chains 11 to 20. there are few of them. many of them are locally or regional chains. i think it's a really good question, in term of passing legislation, hopefully today it's one of these issues that supervisor wiener described as a consideration for these smaller chains. i hope that all the business he within the city will eventually adopt these start a first step as we pass this piece of legislation. >> colleagues, any further discussion on the amendments on the floor? okay, seeing none, typically a motion to continue takes precedence. but since supervisor wiener offered the motion to continue and his amendments at the same time we will take all the

moments to amend first and we'll take them in order. so, first, madam clerk we have supervisor wiener's motion to amend to include 20 locations. with items 41 and 42 roll call vote? >> that was seconded by supervisor tang. okay. supervisor kim? >> no. >> kim no. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. wiener aye? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. ~ ~ supervisor co-en? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. there are 7 ayes and 3 no'ses. >> motion to amend passes. can we go to our second amendment offered by supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang, seconded by supervisor chiu.

supervisor kim. kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor chiu. chiu cohen. cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. there are 10 ayes. >> supervisor tang's motion to item number 42 passes. madam clerk, can we please go to breed's motion to amend private right of action. >> supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee. yee aye. supervisor avalos. avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor chiu? chiu yoo. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell?

farrell aye. 10 ayes. >> motion by supervisor breed pass he. madam clerk, can we move to supervisor wiener's motion to move this to next board meeting november 25th. >> on the motion to continue, mr. chair, we need a second. i'm sorry -- >> i believe we had a second by supervisor tang. >> i have a quick question and point of order. >> supervisor cohen. >> you said this is a continuance request for one week? on item 41 and 42? >> through the chair, yes. >> president chiu? as i said before, i'm not going to support this motion to continue because of the long process we've gone from both a community perspective, a stakeholder perspective as well as in committee and here at the board, are there other issues that need to be addressed.

supervisor marv and i would love to hear them, but i think at this point i know we have addressed major concern that would be consensus on this board. i hope we can pass this on a first read to next week. obviously if there are other issues that arise -- i know supervisor mar and i both went into continue to do work a we have been doing for the better part of a year. with that, i hope we can at least vote on this for the first read. >> supervisor mar? >> i was just going to say out of deference to our president as well, the staff meeting will be next week and i just strongly urge my colleagues to let us move this forward and don't delay this. thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> just, again, supervisor cohen's comment and ideally i probably would have asked for a few weeks. the reason i'm moving for one week instead of three weeks is out of respect for the author of one of the pieces of

legislate. it's a very short period of time and i just think a piece of legislation is important, having that extra dialogue, given that for whatever reason there seems to be a disconnect between the various sides would be helpful. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you. i, too, feel like the process to switch, we brought the discussion -- the legislative process -- it does feel rushed to me. i certainly like the example that supervisor kim and i worked on earlier, really have no solid working group on a round and people work together. however, i will not be supporting the measure. i'm not sure one week of time will do. thank you. >> colleagues, any further discussion on the motion to continue? okay, madam clerk, roll call vote. >> on the motion to continue items he 41 and 42 as amended

to 11/25. supervisor kim? kim no. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee. yee no. supervisor avalos. avalos no. supervisor breed breed aye. supervisor chiu. chiu no. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. there are four ayes and 6 no's. >> colleagues, any discussion on the underlying amendment to 41 or 42? okay, madam clerk, seeing no members on the roster can we have a roll call vote on 41 and 42 together? >> as a medctioned >> as amended. >> supervisor kim. kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee?

yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? excuse me, supervisor chiu. chiu aye. supervisor cohen. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. 10 ayes. >> 1 and 2 are passed on the first read. [cheering and applauding] >> thank you, colleagues. with that, why don't we now go to our first 3:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk, could you call the item related to 115 telegraph hill boulevard? >> items 30 through 33 comprise the special order of 3:00 p.m. for a public hearing. persons interested in the september 3rd, 2014 planning department's determination of a categorical exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued on september 3rd, 2014, for the proposed project at 115 telegraph hill. items 31 through 33 are the

motion that are refer or reverse the department's exemption determination and findings to reverse the exemption determination. items 34 through 37 comprise the comprise persons interested in hearing the planning commission conditional use authorization to allow the construction of three new dwelling units for a lot total of four with three off street parking spaces within the telegraph hill north beach special use residential district located at 115 telegraph hill, items 35 and 37 approve or disapprove the decision and preparation of findings. >> thank you, colleagues, and thank you to members of the public who have been patiently waiting. we have a construction project of three new dwelling units with three off-street parking spaces within the rh-3 zoning district at 115 telegraph hill boulevard. first, there is an appeal of the decision by the planning commission that the project is

categorically exempt from environmental review. second, there is appeal from the use authorization forv this project. first we will consider the adequacy and sufficiency and completeness of the planning commission's determination that this product is categorically exempt from environmental review. [speaker not understood] six votes of the board are required. our consideration of the appeal of the conditional use authorization involves an analysis of whether the planning commission's determination to authorize the project was appropriate. this hearing is quasi-judicial nature and we are reweird to provide due process to overturn planning or authorize conditional use with additional conditions eight votes thev board are required. while both hearings involve distinct analysis on our part, they relate to the same project. in consideration of the members of the public who want to speak on one or both of these issues and in consideration of the

appellants city staff and the board itself, what we are going to do today is to consolidate both of these hearings into a single hearing. in order to ensure that the appellant, the public, the planning department and the project sponsor each receive a full and fair opportunity to address both appeals, i propose we conduct the hearing as we often do as follows. first the appellants will have 15 minutes to present their case for the appeal of the categorical exemption and the appeal of the conditional use authorization. next members of the public that support either or both appeals may mean that you request the board to reject the categorical exemption or the conditional use, speak for up to two minutes or either or both of these issues. and we ask the speaker identify the particular appeal they're addressing with their comments. next the planning department will have up to 15 minutes to present its analysis for certificatev identifying the categorical exemption and for authorizing the conditional use planned unit development.

following that the real party in interest the project sponsor will have up to 15 minutes to present its case for certification of the categorical exemption for affirming the conditional use authorization. that will be followed by members of the public who support the certification of the categorical exemption and the approval of the cu authorization who can speak for up to two minutes on either or both of the issues. we ask that speakers identify the particular appeal they address with their comments. finally, the appellants will have up to five minutes for rebuttal in support of the cad ex appeal and the appeal of the cu authorization. at the conclusion of the hearing we will first vote on whether to affirm the certification of the categorical exemption and in the event that the cad ex certification is affirmed, we will then consider the question of whether to affirm or overturn the conditional use authorization. so, unless there are any objections or questions to proceeding in this way, why don't we now begin this hearing. and with that i'd like to invite a representative from

the appellant. and you have up to 15 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, president chiu and assembly elect, congratulations. and members of the board of supervisors. i am susan grant holley and i'm here to talk about the categorical exemption and to ask this board to overturn it. i want to underscore what categorical exemption are about. ceqa as you know requires environmental review for any project with a potential significant environmental impact. the legislature ha provided for these exemptions to streamline approval of projects when there is no possible significant impact. the record before you is very clear that we have a project with potential significant impacts. its location on telegraph hill on a steep slope, on a narrow road, have i ted by tourists,

and local residents, the traffic impacts, geotechnical impacts and esthetic impacts are potentially and we think certainly going to be significant. and the project sponsor agrees with much of that and so does your staff. especially the easy question here relates to geotechnical impacts. and what the city is doing and i would suggest the city has an unlawful pattern and practice at the moment relating to its treatment of technical environmental impacts in which it just -- it relies on its staff and on a process whereby it states that it will apply its own studies for pier row view complex issues, and basically mitigate potential impacts to make sure that they are not significant. ~ peer review that kind of approach is called a standard approach in ceqa and

there has been a push in years past to try to treat ceqa that way as to all impacts. for example, if you have traffic impacts you could say don't worry. we have potential impacts, public works will take care of them. you have septic or sewer impacts. you could say don't worry, we'll apply our ordinances to make sure those are taken care of. and here geotechnical impacts as conceded by the experts, there are potential impacts due to the slope and very unusual depth of excavation here, 33 feet for an underground garage. but don't worry, we're going to study it, we're going to analyze it, we're going to make sure that we don't have impacts. ceqa doesn't allow that and that's why those things were not passed by the legislature. ceqa has not been changed and what is required is a public process where when you have potential significant impacts they are aired in public. the public has to have a chance to see what's going to be what the impacts are going to be and how those are going to be mitigated. and here you are trying to propose that by approving a categorical exemption and that

is not in compliance with law. there is a belated reliance here. since time is limited i'm going to point out a few problems that are apparent from the staff's rebuttal to the appeal. there is a belated reliance on a new transit oriented section of the public resource he code 21 0 99. it's rather ironic for a project with luxury condominiums of about 4,000 square feet each and an underground 4,000 square foot garage proposed. this is not a transit friendly project. this is a project providing for parking for its residents. and the new line doesn't do away with concern based on adopted city plans and i would point out a lot of the testimony and everyday that you've already received that relates to esthetics, in fact, it contradicts or is inconsistent with arguably the city's general plan. i did cite in my appeal letter

there are priority planning policies to protect parks from vistas from public parks, from developments. here we have a lot of evidence that people visiting san francisco as well as local residents walk up those steps right across from the project site and stop there to take a look at the unobscured vista of the city right there. the way this project is now proposed, that vista, that view will be blocked. people walking up that hill or walking up those stairs in the park will not have the view of the city that they now enjoy. that is inconsistent with the city's adopted plan and we're not arguing necessarily that this can't be approved,. what we're saying is that is evidence of a potential environmental impact that precludes categorical exemption ~. there are traffic problems and even if this section applies to

21 0 99, that isn't now to allow level of service ~ aspects to be considered so that you don't let any more possibly in the future especially level of service impacts and delays in intersections, you still have to look at air pollution, pedestrian safety, noise, and other issue relating to traffic. and there is a lot of evidence, the record about potential significant impacts relating to those issue, and you're going to be hearing more from i believe people testifying here today about impacts relating to the location of the local school where the staging of the concrete trucks is going to occur. mitigation measures in this record are also significant. categorical exemptions aren't allowed when you need mitigation. i'd like to briefly explain that in that the idea behind categorical exemptions is to streamline projects that have no impacts. when