sequa. the appellant has not provided substantial evidence to support a claim that the eir fails to comply with seqa, the guidelines or chapter 31 of the administrative code. therefore, planning respectfully recommends that the board upholds the commission certification of the final e requiremenirand with that, i'lly colleague, nick foster, to address the conditional use authorization appeal. >> good afternoon. i'm nick foster with the planning department staff. also before the board today is whether to uphold or overturn the conditional use authorization or the ceu for this project. the planning commission on september 5th approved the conditional use for a vote of 7-3 to allow structures to exceed 40 feet in a zoning district and for a planned unit development from select requirements of the planning code. as you've heard, the appellant contends the board shall authorize this because it's not desirable or compatible with the neighborhood. in granting the cieu, including the new and reused

sequa. this contains the legally required reasonable range and provides ample information for analysis and consideration by you, the decision makers. and for an additional alternative not in the eir to be legally ar required, it must be different from those presented in the eir and must clearly lessen the project's significant impacts. on the last day of the public comment period, lhia submitted narratives and sketches for two projects and followed up with two more after the final er was published just prior to the certification hearing. as determined by th the expertsd supported with substantial evidence, these four appellant plans are not different from the alternative studied in the eir. in addition, the city's architects at dpw determined the feasibility of the plans is highly speculative and these plans would not provide the same number of high-quality residential unit as the project before you today. like the projects in the eir, the appellant's plans failed to meet the urban design an

and i would like to focus this evening on the sequa appeal. they present 18 arguments attempting to attack the eir s efficiency. although appell annual disagrees on these points, it fails to meet the evidentiary burden and substantial evidence in support of the arguments that the eir an

the omission of an analysis in sequa is an emission so the measure analysis is legal issue. it's was incorrect any use of the design guidelines. >> is that it? >> yes. ok, i want to say these pub pubc hearings for 22, 26 and 30 have been held and closed. we are now reconvened as the board of supervisors. we will take up the items related to the exemption from environmental review first and that would be items 23, 24 and 25 and we will be making an analysis of the adequacy, act accuracy and completeness of the environmental report, certified by the planning commission for the project at 3333 california street. again, this requires six votes of the board of supervisors. do we have a motion on items 23, 24 and 25? supervisor stephanie? thank you, president yi. first of all, i would like to start by thanking everyone who came out today to give public comment. i do take these appeals very seriously. here at the board of supervisors we sit in a semijudicial role when voting and we have to act on the merits of the information presented to us and the confines of what is actually in

they argue it should have been included in the chapter but similar alternatives were studied and sequa did not require that an eir consider every alternative or combination of alternatives. based on evidence presented today, it is my belief the final eir complies with the sanfrancisco admin code, providing an adequate impact of the project and thus, will be making a motion to deny the ail peel and affirm the final eir certification. >> a motion made and is there a second? >> seconded by supervisor ronan and then let's take role call. >> deputy city john givener. >> just to clarify the item that you'll be voting on as a motion to approve item 23 and take items 24 and 25. >> that was the motion. >> role call, please. (role call). there are ten ayes. >> ok, so the motion passes. we're going to move on to the planning commission's decision -- well, the planning commission's decision is affirmed. we will consider the conditional use appeal, which is items 27, 28 and 29. consideration of the appeal of the conditional use authorization involves analysis of whether the plan's commission's dete

this is not sequa issue. the appellant fails to meet the burden that the record supports reversal of the planning commission and dpw. it did not and cannot provide evidence in support of its evidence. the records supporting the determinations is thorough consisting of multiple years of study and analysis and based on facts and evidence rather than argument and infect allegation. speculation. this project will transform and underutilized wall-offtioff tens sites with 744 new homes. , 185 affordable units for seniors, childcare uses and neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses. we ask you reject these appeals and move forward today. thank you, supervisors. >> thank you. any questions? i have a question of the proje project, is there a reason why it was infeasible to make a family unit affordable? >> so this project through the development agreement, it was determined that was a specific need for senior housing and that affordable senior housing should be what was emphasized and the project would provide

the sud ordinance permitting arch activities. >> so i would like to amend the ordinance to add the sequa findings on page 2 to read, and adopt a supplemental sequa findings on board, as well as technical amendment on page 3, line 25, to strike other residential uses to replace it with art's activities. >> so we have amendments that were described by supervisor stephanie and our deputy city attorney, john givener. seconded by safaye with additional amendments. can we take these amendments without objections? then it passes. supervisor stephanie, do you want to make a motion to the rest of them? >> you need a role call, mr. president or without objection on the items? >> to 34, 35 and 36. let's take that as amended and is there any -- can we take this same house, same call? then all three passes as amend amended. so without they pass and the first reading. and madam clerk, to role call for introductions again. >> thank you. supervisor stephanie, if you kneeneeded to come pack, we coud come back to you or start with you for new business. >> submit. >> thank you. >> supervisor walton. submit

when we have sequa if we know this project belongs to this and it will get the arrow and know this needs to be taken care of in a mitigated way, it would be nice for everyone to understand when the project sponsor or the staff or us could tap into these resources to make some decision or using it as our guiding principle to complement the general plan and also the city plan. i'm not sure that will be achievable. really i think it's a roadmap. a flowchart would help because we can all refer to a single source of references instead of what my interpretation of when we can use this and what my fellow commissioners when we can use it and also our fellow planning commissioners. my other comment i wanted to bring up is you created a really good image of a mural in the front page of the guideline, but haven't really talked about how you -- or if there's any process that you would recommend to evaluate murals. that is like another -- another silo, another huge avalanche of subject matters that could be very interesting and invigorating to discuss. i would love to learn more about how us as a pla

however, this process has run afoul of state sequa law but they admit the proposed project would cause a significant adverse change in the significance of the resource. under sequa, use of the historic prescribed guidelines is the method of mitigating effects on a resource. that's what they're designed for but they were lawfully omitted from the mitigation section of the eri. ir. these are called the secretary standards including specific guidelines that explain how adverse impacts on the resources can be mitigated. for example, a one-story addition on a multistory is acceptable. the eir is defective because it failed to describe mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid the proposed project exhibit impact on the resource through the use of these guidelines. both mitigation measures and alternatives are required to be discussed in an eir and they're both different things. and the eir only considered photographing and documenting the resource that would be destroyed, but this was insufficient to mitigate the effect. the emission of mitigation measures was prejudicial because it dep

business permits and a three-year extension of temporary retail use authorization and to affirm the sequamination and make the appropriate findings. >> colleagues, same house, same call? without objection, this passes unanimously. please call item number 10. >> an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code to add provisions to the traffic mitigation tax and make conforming non-substantive change. >> supervisor peskin. >> i wanted to use this as an opportunity to thank everyone of my colleagues on the board of supervisors. mayor breed and most particularly the electorate of san francisco for d. >> same house, same call without objection. this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 11. >> item 11 is an ordinance to approve an amendment to the system purchase and installation agreement between the city and motorolla, inc, to increase the amount from 33 million to 81 million and extend the term by 7.5 years through december 31, 2029. >> colleagues, same house, same call? without objection, it's passed first reading unanimously. madam cler

a break with employment with the housing authority and employment with the city and to affirm the sequa determination. >> so colleagues, can we have a motion to continue this item to the meeting of november 12th, 2019? >> so move. >> moved and seconded by supervisor safaye. without objection, this item will be continued -- >> mr. president, supervisor walton is on the roster. >> i'm sorry. >> just a question, why are we continuing this item? >> because that's what the charter -- we need a week. >> ok. >> supervisor furer. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. >> yes. president yi, i want to be added as a cosponsor. >> so colleagues, this is a motion to continue, made without objection and this is continued to tuesday, november 12th, 2019. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> item 27 is an aaron to amend the administrative code to dis-cost the workforce committee and workforce alignment. >>> colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? >> this is passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, the next item? >> item 28, to amend the administrative code to extend the sunset