investment and if there are other things in return for that the higher amounts is good way. >> commissioner richards. >> looking at the calendar of this plan viruses some of the other things going on like the implementation monitor and roster eastern neighborhoods i'd like to see that come out first we can verify let's make sure that is in here f this didn't work maybe this shouldn't be in here other question if affordable housing nexus study how did that play into this this is coming in a year. >> my council might have a better answer. >> is that for the entire city. >> yeah. we're undergoing the job housing linkage for the nexus study aid also an update to the residential inclusions

affordable housing nexus study they'll be completed later this year. >> a couple of other points i agree with ms. hester enforcement needs to be part of this and kind of gaining the system a little bit we're all human i know we've mentioned to the director when we have the affordable housing nexus study some type of object with commissioner wu and the other commissioner said about displacement we'll have thirty percent at poverty line with the federal reserve one the parrot areas in the city that is something i'd like to see we've talked about two other points commissioner antonini's point we established the complaths and construction i'm worry about that prices are going up and the second one on trying to understand the

community benefits can be concretely with the market octavia plan i think 40 or 45 kind of pie in the sky projects i haven't seep this but helps you understand what is possible and the price tag associated with it. >> okay thanks again to the staff for the author report we look forward to follow up let's take one more item then a break. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further 13 for case e and bryant street it is the appeal of the preliminary negative declaration.

>> commissioner. want to introduce you to someone who you've not met not to the commission chris has joined the department 3 years and worked in the private section with the transportation group he has his masters from transportation management from san jose state. >> welcome. >> all right. good afternoon commissioner wu and fellow commissioners my name is chris the environmental planning with the planning department staff joining me is the environmental officer and senior planner and

taylor project manager the public works and from the consulting the item before you is a negative declaration for amending for the proposed rehabilitation and detention facility project on bryant street in the upper market neighborhood brown bag we provide with the appeal hearing excuse me. deputy director edgar lopez and gentleman from public works will provide i with a brief project overview. >> good afternoon edgar with the public works the city architect and the deputy director today, you'll hear a brief presentation from our project manager but before she begins with the details the

project i wanted to say how important this project is for the city rehabilitation detention facility is a project that is identified in the cities 10 year capital plan since 2006 and part of a larger project the justice project that aims to move people out of the hall of justice a building that is seismically unsafe and expected to be unhabitual after a major disaster. >> excuse me. i apologize. i didn't know you were making the presentation the procedure for the negative declaration is allowed for the staff to introduce the item and the appellant makes their presentation first and then the project sponsor. >> in that case the indirectly

planning will complete our presentation and enter into this process we thought that would be helpful given the content of the project and the points at which the ceqa consideration is take place for the commission to gain understanding of what is going on one thing i wanted to clarify is that the reason that this p n d is before the commission at this point it is earlier in this process you will be seeing this project again at a much later date wards to our recommendations on the property rezoning and the project itself however at this point in time for the city to anytime. >> in their application for the

grant concern commitments need to be made on the part of the city once the ceqa review has gone through the steps by the board of supervisors this constitutes the approval and the ceqa receive needs to be implemented so following this hearing from the planning commission choose to upheld the mitigated negative declaration there will be a hearing at the board of supervisors the board will be the proofer and taking the step of improving the negative declaration the commission will top the negative declaration at this point i'm going to turn it over to mr. spear to discuss the content of the negative declaration

>> all right. commissioners you should have about you a packet containing the competitive summer the responses to the appeal letter the appealer will he itself and on may 13, 2015 the planning department published a pmd for the proposed project the during the comment period an appeal letter from the group california united for a responsible budget in june at described both the appellant and the comment letter submitted by interested parties raised a number of issues primarily about impacts to air quality, noise, parking, wind ab compliance with prop m and others

appropriateness it addresses each appeal and the comment letters none of the comments or appeal warranted a restriction to the pmd, however the planning department wants to addressing add text under actions by the board of supervisors as i will read into the record incorporate approval of a funding application to the board of state and community corrections and authorize the execution of agreements including the krufshgs and finance agreement the board of supervisors to approve the funding application and the execution of certain contradiction and the constitution for the final project if i'll allow me to highlight some of the issues raised by the appellant and the pmd comment period

first, the appellant asserts the proposed project has a significant impact related to parking noise, air quality and other tops, however, those assertions are speculative and based on a miss characterization of the project the appellants concerns related to the adequacy of the analysis for the pmd is not if you wanted it is a misunderstanding of the project and the analysis for the pmd and therefore no further responses are required the second the appellant and a u asserts it fails to comply with the city and county of san francisco policies 2, 1926 and 6 and the project fails to comply with san francisco prop m and should be rejected under ceqa the land use impacts are significant if that clflz clefs

with mitigating an environmental effect the proposed project will not substantial conflict with applicable policies and regulations such that adverse physical change will result therefore the proposed project will have a lens significant impact with conflicts with the existing plans and zoning further the appellant raised concerns of the relocation of 14 sro units and tenants in the 48 to 484 mixed use street building, however, the city has not determined whether or not the relocation is necessary through known plans for the building this is possible that relocation of the building occupants will not occur in the certainty that may occur on the site the likely future use was

inadequate analyzed the potential environmental impacts that can occur in the tenants were are - thus for the purposes of environmental analyzed in the pmd the environmental impacts were quantified to be a worse case scenario was assumed and that all 14 sro units will be vacated in a more intense use for a 4 hundred plus office space and gross square feet of ground floor retail space were analyzed and other studies will be the same whether the existing building would be retained on the project remained from arrange or office space with the

sheriff's department or other public agrees contrary to the appellants assertion that the potential loss of the sro units from the proposed unit that be with the prop m the accountable planning 234i678 policy two and three even though the daytime of sro unity u units about not necessity the replacement of affordable housing it will provide protection to the tenants their implementation of a residential relocation plan and that would establish a program to help the tenants who qualify for assistance with the relocation expenses including moving expenses if they were to be to it made loss of 14 sro you are housing units will not

result in a lens environmental review that will is significant environment impacts the preparation of an eir is required when the proposed project could result in significant impacts however a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate when revisions to the promoted project and mitigation measures are agreed to by the project manager will reduce the impacts such as clearly no significant impacts will occur as discussed throughout the pmd the proposed project will not result in significant physical environmental impact report that will not be mitigated therefore no eir is required. >> further staff believes no

substantial evidence of a significant environmental review staff recommends that the planning commission adapt the motion to uphold the pmd that concludes my presentation. and representatives from the department of public works and i are available for any questions thank you. >> thank you so i believe we say hear from the appellant. >> thanks hi there i'm raphael the director for the nonprofit organization fund in 1981 a member of curve for responsible budget that sent the appeal letter i know that the members are here if you want to stand up i expect to hear from them would it be all right to

summarize. >> if you can stop the time jonas because that's the coalition how do we interpret that. >> the coalition is the appellant name this individual this presentation time will be on behalf of the entire coalition so members of the coalition should limit their time as part of this presentation of 10 minutes but clearly by the raising of hands if they wanted to stand up at the end of the presentation to show they're in agreement that is just as effective. >> okay so i appreciate the staff introduction they've described our concerns we day with their conclusions and want to say ask for a full eir the content of our objections and talk about the ceqa issues this project to rebuild the jail

is a part of criminal justice system has impacts on wants vulnerable communities the pervasive problems been the justice rebuilding the jail makes the problems in the city would be able worse in terms of the things you'll hear from the justice improvement program our coalition didn't oppose replacing the criminal justice ore belief is is the city to not replace the jail we would like to stop fighting about this we're fluted with the lack of public process that's been begin given to the public we appreciate this femur but the eir is a better forum as i

mentioned this is in the capital planning process the planning within the city government has not invited us to talk about whether or not approve or disapprove briefly on the screen this project will to the receive voter approval in san francisco there'sal limit opportunity to use confidence certificate this is what is in the plan and for 10 years it's important to understand part of this is to avoid we like to see the eir to invite us that hadn't happened and lastly we recollection the timeline part of when the project was proposed 10 years ago it was a reasonable project the train goes along nobody wanted to derail it i understand

but things have changed in san francisco the whole country is against the incarceration rate and they're far lower than 2006 the district attorney geroge gascon this this project is not necessary and it's not been adjusted i know those are in eir issues but understanding the commended now i'll talk about the issues we see where we disagree with your staff about eir issues think outside the box the issue of housing the potential displacement of 14 people from an sro as i understand the ordinance requires one for one as identified i'm not entirely certain to be honest whether they're on the list but the planning department staff are not either but go ahead and approve that without looking at triangle i don't know why they

doesn't analyze it but that it seems to me under the residential hotel if there's an impact and the scenario then is it should be up for mitigation that's one and two if it's not other than the list we're displacing 114 units the cathedral project many times when this project was successfully negotiated 20 thoughts unions on this site their slated for one to one replacement so losing the affordable units was up for mitigation i don't see why 20 units is as significant as it would be here we think if you did an eir we accounted consider it and number two the parking we were going to talk about the

impact a special provision you don't need to consider the impacts are you familiar with the written in ceqa that was created a couple of years donna ago if our employment center you don't need to consider parking that is by and large it may bring a lot of jobs to people but the employment center the way it is stated in the stating h state code one it be xhernl zoned not commercially zoned detail from your staff and p zoning as p zoning for the purposes of gaining the ceqa exception i see how this is reasonable for project at city hall or the city offers this but if it is a c zone i'll look at 3

hundred jobs on site this is as less than 3 hundred employees that are transferred from the adjacent building not creating creating less than 50 jobs and they're asking you to say this is an unemployment project that is not reasonable we shouldn't do that and the last one is about air quality you didn't hear about this level of detail one the issues the air quality and the noise levels in this area- is next to the freeway their high and unacceptable when we pointed out in our appeal letter the staff said, yes but there building is fwle fully enclosed they'll never be able to go outside that's like being

in jail if you're looking at the staff letter they've identified number one we're not correct this is fully enclosed and this building is designed to comply with state codes and st. patrick's day standards for jail construction that is wu why you don't need to be concerned with air quality that's the agency you were hearing about it you approve the pmd we should be following their codes and standards they say look at quote an outdoor exercise area must be provided we're a type two facility equal to county jail so it must be provided yet the staff pointed out the design explicitly we're not going to do

that; right? we're going to comply and approving a letter that didn't meet the basically minimum standards you don't want to sign off i know it put you in a gone drive for outdoor space for the jail on the site next door to the freeway it is impossible to achieve an outdoor air quality solution let's not keep people in jail but put people outdoor for other - that kind of policy decide is not a ceqa decision; right? but a connection as a connecting issue and picture if you approve the pmd you're putting the most vulnerable san franciscans the people in jail poor people and disperforming share of san

franciscans you're putting them into an unhealthy environment that's what ceqa to keep californians from being in an unhealthy environment but if you do that it is oppose that's what we're here to talk about. >> i'm familiar with our process. >> if we can refrain from the disruption please right now we'll hear from the project sponsor. >> there was condominium conversion if there are members of the public that want to identify with the responsible budget maybe you can stand to show your support. >> thank you there was like 30 seconds remain on the clock if anyone want to speak at this

point. >> this is our opportunity to speak as party to the appellant okay. >> i'm sorry there was confusion if you are offering as part of the coalition you can't use public comment on this item a general public comment at the end of the hearing so if you are part of the coalition i have to speak that the remaining time in the appellants time period. >> unless there's i'm told something else. >> this process of avoiding the complete environmental study of this it seems to me driven by the net for putting in a grant

quickly rather than a serious consideration of environmental review good afternoon and thank you. i just want to point out act out a couple of things i'll try not to repeat whole process is unaccountable if you were at environmental impact report for the negative declaration there was the sheriff's department that was basically selling the jail nothing about the environmental review and the community was not able to provide impact as sanchez in sacramento bs cc they'll be applying for funding? the reason why the city of san francisco is deciding to go to the negative declaration route they want to

steam role the progress in order to meet the deadline. >> sir, i'm sorry your time is up. >> it has expired. >> we had a whole bunch of people. >> if you try to wrap up in 30 seconds. >> another thing the employment center project under the exception sb 743 the project has to be an employment transit proximity consistent with a plan with an eir done and consistent with a sustainable community strategy and san francisco's community strategy that was made acquired under sb 5 one the points to san francisco specific was to transportation tie it to affordable housing production and planning now this project by

and, sir this was 30 seconds. >> sorry your time has expired. >> okay. we'll give the time to the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my name is a ms. taylor the project manager i have slides i'd like to share you with

before he left he start to speak about the project and why san francisco public works is working with the sheriff's department to move ahead with the application to have ceqa clearance for the project it is part of the program we have to relocate everyone out of the project so the city has identified the city i site for the replacement jail and when we submitted the environmental review when we start the process it had 40 beds that was the pmd since the controller asked we have reduced that project has been reduced to probably about 4 hundred and 84 beds that's the new