being built so we can provide cage frz the people that the cops will criminalize and arrest and you can't let that happen despite the regulations. >> thank you next speaker please. >> tom gillburty. i think another example of applause and redirection-so much of the energy for the police is having to deal with drugs, having to deal with mental illness on the street, homeless on the street. instead of jailing these people we need a alternative and for all of the other reasons everybody just said and continue to say, pause and redirection is needed instead of building more jail cells. thank you >> thank you next speaker

please. >> hello my name is rilen tom and i just learned about this today, first of all i'm only 16. for myself to just learn about this today and see how huge this is, i want to discourage it because one thing is that you are encouraging people to be in jail. two, is right now i'm with the mental health board and we are doing a project about how teens are accessing mental helths services. the thing is, if you encourage this, like you are asking them to be in there. money should like, it was said to be given them opportunities, encouraging them and trying to get them outside the poverty and space and environment. sthais huge problem we are having. why is the money being used to build something and

encourage them and allow them to go into that space and not having them have a future. that is what i feel you are encouraging if you allow the jails to be built. thank you >> thank you next speaker please >> my name ismery merryman. i just want to say and support everything that you heard so far. also, there is information available about communities that where prisons are. about when prison is built again or when public money is built on prison thinking they employ people, incarcerating who ever you have much more domestic violence and substance abuse because the level of negativity is obscene. you can go on from there and why are we doing this, even

thinking about this instead of helping each other and ourselves. thank you >> thank you next speaker please. >> my name is loren carb nel, i want to say our helths and safety will not be improved with jail expansion. our county jails are violent, poorly run and waste taxpayer money. the public fund use today police convict and incarcerate people should go to provide housing, education, helt care and employment. safe and helthsy communities dependent on mental helths services. youth centers and affordable house{real opportunities in their community not cages. we want deserve and demand to live in a state that prioritizes heblth, well being cultural and political life. currently we are facing hard times. it is difficult for many people particularly in those of communities of color to find meaningful work, affordable housing and access to good

education and sustainable health care. decision makerwise the power to change these conditions however, are not focusing on our communities needs. many political leaders are spending more tax dollars orbuilding more jails, hiring more police and subsuicizing high in condoes. we don't need more jails. we need the basic resources that make our community whole. >> are there members of the public who would like to comment at this time? seeing none public comment is closed. we are going to move to the presentation from the planning department as well as department of public works. or any other city department who would like to comment up to 10 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon president breed and members of

the board. my name issera joans and i'm the environmental review office. from the city. joining me today is christopher [inaudible] senior environmental planner. the board today will consider both the sequa review for the jail project and cities application for the grant for the prob eblth. you heard comment regarding the merits of the project. the question for the board is whether the planning department appropriately issued a negative declaration. the board has the opportunity to consider whether a fair argument based on substantial evident has been made that the project would have significant unavoidable physical impacts under sequa. it is our view that's no such evidence is provided and all environmental impacts are analyzed and

addressed. unlike many sequa items before the body, the sequa determination isn't the only aspect of the project. if the board is in agreement with the planning department and commission regarding the adequacy of the sequa durmt they have the opportunity to consider the approval or disapproval of the grant application. i'll turn the presentation to mr. [inaudible] to discuss the contents of the consideration. >> thank you sara. good afternoon board president breed and member thofz board. the subject of the public hearing today is the mmd for the proposed rehabilitation and detention facility at 850 bryant street. the project would demaunsh 3 buildings on site and construct a 200 thousand square foot, 110 foot tall rdf ajais tonight the existing hall of justice building. the project replaces the existing county jail

facility 3 and 4 and is part of a larger program to relocate city agencies from the seismicly [inaudible] the rdf is constructed as a maximum security facilities up to 640 beds which reflects a 30 percent reduction of 905 beds in county jails 3 and 4. on july 10, staff sent a memo containing the departments responses to an appeal of the mmd to the planning commission. the appeal was filed by california united for a responsible budget. this was heard by the planning commission june 25, 2015 and the planning commission with a vote of 6 to 0 up hp held the planning department decision that the project impact thonz environment were appropriately analyzed pursuant to sequa with the prepation of the mmd. the board is considering the adquency of the mmd and the

board considers a negative declaration of a context ofa peal but because the board is the first decision making body on this project and the decision making body for sequa the board will adopt the negative declaration is no appeal is required under sequa or provided in the cities administrative code chapter 31. the board will act to afirm or disapprove the planning departments decision to find a negative declaration as adequate. the mmd is not subject to appeal, the palt group curb submitted a letter yesterday raising issues with sequa review and containing the mmd should analyze air quality and noise impact on outdoor spaces rather than enclosed spaces. the project as proposed was analyzed based on the projecktd description provided by the sponsor. the

rdf doesn't include the provision of out door spaces so air quality and nysimpact on the enclosed spaces is appropriate. should the project sponsor decide to modify the project description and provide out door spaces the project is subject to further sequa review. staff would analyze the project or recirculate the mmd pursuant to sequa. curb reiterates their contention that a eir be required to consider a better alternative to the project including a pretrial diversion program. such issues may be considered by the board on approval or disapproval of the grant application but sequa review doesn't provide the mechanism to address these options when there are no significant impacts. during a planning commission heard

-during a planning commission hearing january 25 member thofz public raised similar issues conducted by the department. these issues are addressed in written materials to the board. the appellate acurted the praublgect would have significant impacts related to parking, nys, air quaument, wintd and other topics, however those assertions are speculative and based on a mischaracterization. those tapeics were found to be addressed and no further changes required. second, the appellate asserted the mmd fails to comply with city and county oof san francisco priority policy 2, 3 and 5 and fails to comply with proposition m. the mmd analyzes the physical impacts of the project but doesn't recommend approval or

disapproval. further the appellate raised concerns about the potential relocation of 14 sro units and retail tenants in 480-484, 6th street building thmpt building would be retained on site and relocation is uncertain. [inaudible] environmental review oof relocation plan is required. for the reason in the appeal, appeal response, the department finds the sequa determination complies with sequa and final mitigated negative declaration for the project is the appropriate environmental review determination. while the department appreciates the palts concerns, they haven't

provided substantial evident to refute. further in response to the new issue regarding wind impact, the [inaudible] the demolition of the hoj building was not included as part of the project therefore the wind analysis conducted for the mmd was appropriate. finally, staff believes no substantial evidence is presented that warrant a eir. staff therefore recommends the board to affirm the [inaudible] this concludes my resinitation. representatives from project sponsor and department of public work and i are available for question >> thank you. supervisor kim did you have questions for the planning department? just for clarity, will there boob a

presentation from the real estate department, public works or from the sheriffs department? >> yes, representatives of those departments rin attendance and planning to do a presentation. >> just for clarity after supervisor kim's questions to the planning department, those departments combined will have up to 10 minutes. supervisor kim. >> thank you and i want to thank plan frg the presentation. i have a couple questions. in my time on the board i have never seen the board certify the planning commission's determination on the environmental review before. i'm still trying to understand this process. usually we hear this if there is a appeal. i understand that we wanted to demonstrate to the state agency that this board has certified and the planning

commission already has and have questions about how this gets appealed now that the body that hears the appeal to the planning commission is prehearing this determination. that is one question. second, i think i have a overall question of the process to determine the project didn't require a full eir. by virtue of how large the project is, it seems logical we do a full environmental impact review. i don't often get to see mitigated neg decks because we see them as a appeal so the only pointf reference i have is [inaudible] which i know received a mitigated neg deck to the boards of supervisors and that was a rehabilitation of a existing building. they seem to be very different types of projects so if you can

answer both of those questions. thank you. >> i'm going to ask deputy city attorney [inaudible] to respond to your first question regarding the question here before you today. >> the board of supervisorsicate stasy from the sate attorneys office. this is the first neg deck hearing the board had since the neg deck appeals began. sequa requires an appeal to the elected legislative body when a non elected body adopts the neg deck. the adoption of a neg tchb declaration occurs when the city proves the project itself and since no other body has yet approved the project, the board is the first decision making body that will approve the project and adopt the negative because the board is the elective decision making body there is no appeal prided

to the board in sequa. the item is included on your calen deder as a separate item to allow the public to testify on the negative declaration and provide the board the ability to hear the item. if the board determined the neg deck wasn't adequate the motions on the calendar also allow the board to provide spinge direction on how to fix the environmental review or augwant the environmental review such that the board find it adequate and objective. but, putting it on the boards calendar as a separate matter isn't necessarily legally required. it could have been folded into the board approval action item that you could have considered and heard the neg deck on that item. in order to approve the project proposed with the commitments in the resolution now , the board has to find the

environmental review is adequate and the neg deck serves the purpose for the environmental review for the project. >> i have 2 follow up questions to that. i understand that item 65 has several clauses that state this board is approving the project and moving forward. if the board was to decide to amend item 65 to takeute any reference to approval, would we have to make this determination today? >> well, there are a number of component to the determination of what is approval under sequa. if the board were only approving applying for the grant funding but retained full authority to approve or disapprove the project and modify the project and consider

alternatives if necessary to the project, there are circumstances under sequa where that may not be considered a approval of the project. it is substantial rework of the resolution and the board would have to with hold approval of a number of component included in the rez dugz in order to keep open all possibilities as required under sequa if the board determines the sequa review isn't adequate today and did want want to uphold or affirm the neg deck >> i'll press on that more. i think there are a number of members of the board not ready to approve the project. we had a meeting last week asking the city for more alternatives asking for [inaudible] in the south of market. i think at minimum that is a question that this board needs to answer when we get to item 65, but if we

take out the reference to any type of approval that the board is interested in applyic to the state grant because the timeline is in august and we haven't yet determined what the alternatives are and what is the best option moving forward as we did last year when we approved applying for the state grant last weir without approval for the project, would we still need to make this determination today sphwe didn't feel ready to do that on the mitigated neg deck? could we put off approving the planning commissions certification of the environmental determination? >> well, if the board determined the neg ative declaration wasn't adequate for-- >> i know we can do that today, so we as a board today can decide we disagree with the determination and send it back to the planning department. that is one option. i'm asking

is it possible not to vote at all on the determination if we take out any reference to approval in item 65? >> if the board retained all of its discretion to change and modified the project and didn't commitment to the construction aspects of the project, the action could be crrd not to be an approval under sequa and therefore environmental review would not be required at this point. >> right >> one other consideration for the board is that when the project is developed and the project comes back to the board, the board would have to determine that whatever environmental review had been finalized now or later is adequate for that approval so there is additional approval

that environmental review would need to be updateed for and considered to be current. i think there are ways that the board could really scale back this action and to retain all of its discretion to not move forward to change the construction aspects of the project to only authorized staff to apply for the grant funding but be very specific but what it is not approving. >> right. i will state, i think there is a number of members currently that are not ready to make any type of aprovel. i'm not sure there a project before us and find it very strange to make a determination on the environmental review when we konet what the project is. it is moving project. it has gone from 800 beds to 300 beds and have a controllers bed saying we don't need any beds or

negative beds and want the widest discretion to determine what the best option is for the board so there is no project. it seems very strange to make an approval of a environmental determination of a project that is very [inaudible] usually at the time that we have these types of approvals come before us we have a fairly well formed projict in terms of what the developer is putting for wrbd and concrete ideas of what the project may be. it doesn't feel that is what we have before us today so wonder what the options. in mean r meeting with various departments it is implied to me all we are doing today is approving us moving forward with the state application so we can see if we are eligible for the funds and approved for the fund and then have a sense of the financial burden of the project that moves forward. it is nev clear

to me that we are approving a project and don't support that today. i thipg we have a lot of work to do before we get to a point to approve any project and we don't have a lot of details of what that will be. thank you for your response to that. i think-i do have one more question. if we do approve this determination today, what is the next step for an appellate? when'd they move to the the court directly since the body won't hear an appeal on our determination? >> that is correct, if the board approved this project today and adopted the negative declaration the next step is the city files a notice of determination as it does after project approval and then the -any opposition could litigate

that issue that that is the next step on this aspect of the project. >> do you this can there is a significant cost difference and burden to the aappellate to appeal to the court versus this body? >> i-it is hard to know what that cost differential. i don't know all the cost involved in filing a lawsuit >> if the appellate isn't happy with our deninel or approve of the sequa determination they go to court. what is the typical cost, someone must know the answer because our decisions get appealed all the time? >> i really couldn't advice the board on what the cost is to the litigant. there is a wide range of cost to the city in defending against those

lawsuits but there may be somebody who can give better information than i could. >> i'm curious on that because i would like to see the appellate in this case to havea peal of the determination through a route of legislative body which i believe is less costly but don't know the answer to that so that is something i would like to understand better. back to the planning department, i wanted to understand better how the planning department was able to make the determination under sequa which the project is a a moving department. >> i'll respond to thereat question and address your earlier question regarding a issuance of a negative declaration of this size. we

analyzed praunlect description provided by the department of public work squz real estate and stairfs department that was specified in terms of the content of the project. it was similar to other project applications we get in terms of the level of detail and contonet and description and that is what we analyzed. it is not uncommon for projects during the time we are doing the environmental review to change if they get smaller which is what happened with this project, it is still covered within the environmental review. also the environmental review is for a somewhat larger project that what gets approved but that is appropriate. we are looking at a worse case scenario and we do afirm the project still covers the impacts even when a project changed. so, we did not have a

project description that was vague or influx and the full project description is contained wn within the environmental document. in terms of the decisions to issue a mitigated negative declaration, this board of supervisors see appeals of environmental determinations done on projects who descriptions fit in certain parameters. you caents issue a cad ecs that doesn't meet that exemption. there is a link or for the projects to come here, there is link between the type of environmental document we prepare and the description of the project. for a project that doesn't qualify for an

exemption the next step under sequa is you perform a initial study and for all the 18 different topic areas we look at in our check list, we see if there are cigsent project impacts that can not be avoided or reduced to a level of less than significance. if you can apply mitigation measures that reduce those impacts completely you issue a negative declaration. the project had mitigation measures to historic resources, archeology, air quality and noise. if there are significant unavoidable impacts that you cant reduce to a level of significant that is when sequa calls to prepare a report. the neg deck versus [inaudible] isn't based on project size, it is based on

whether a project has significant impacts that can't be avoided. >> thank you, that is really helpful in clarifying the distinction between when we require a eir and mitigated neg deck. i am trying to remember the smaller projects the board has seen. if memory serves correctly, did we do one for booker t washington? >> yes there was a eir done for booker t washington. >> which was a fairly small building construction, i say about the size of the jail replacement rebuild. >> it makes sense to do a eir for major plans. treasure island and [inaudible] we'll do a environmental impact review. i'm trying to think of smaller projects where we have done a eir and trying to understand

the distinction between booker t washington and this one. >> i don't recall the detailoffs booker t washington. i do believe-she believes the reason for the eir there was a historic resource impact. that is the most common reason that we do a environmental impact report for a building project. there are many buildings in san francisco that qualify as historical resources under sequa and if a project propose said to demaunsh a building no matter how big the replacement building is, it requires a environmental impact report. in the case of this project, there is a historical resource on the site, the site wouldn't demolish it and there isn't a significant impact to a historical resource from this project. >> i'm not sure i remember a historical resource issue