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 de

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 is

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 de

the project as defined under sequa is anything that may have physical impacts on the environment so in this case because of the terms of the grant application there are potential physical outcomes of the board action to approve it. this is a typical and appropriate time to complete the sequa review. we conduct the review on the amount of project information available at the time and this amount of information is a typical amount of information to have in conducting sequa review. also, it is not unusual for there to be a substantial amounts of time elapshing between the time that sequa review is completed and the time that all of the approvals on aproject are playing out so there is a fair amount of work that still continues after that first approval occurs typically. >> if can summarize, suquenshly, wree odd but the process is not odd. the fact we are the body asked to review this is out of the ord but sequa occurring at this statement stage isn't so unusual? >> i would say that is correct >> is there going to be a number och opportunities to review the project and to ascertain its continued compliance with the neg deck as the project develops? >> the project is require today go through a f

the jail came for a vote before the body last year we said, it is only a application for state money. now, we hear this is just sequa analysis, it doesn't tie the boards hands or this is just a state grant application again, the board will have other votes later. frankly, i'm worried if we get the grant we will hear, you can't stop the project now or we'll lose 80 million dollars in state money. let me be clear, i will support the sequa analysis because it meets the legal standards and will support the funding application because i know we need a new facility of some size and some type. number 2, i'll make a motion to amend the funding application resolution to specifically say, that the board of supervisors shall retain authority tew prove or disapprove a proposed facility. that ew the application we'll still have a is a iin what happens moving forward regardless of the dollar amount we spend on the praunlect. number 3 i'm committed to the the specific plan, i want us to continue monitoring jail population trends and working to get the number of beds eechb even lower and see a much greater investment in whatever the plan is in diversion programs bail

the sequa information. this was disengine ws because they are passing the buck to you the board of supervisors because they didn't want to address our concerns about the lack of public comment and process for this project that we believe a full environmental review under sequa would provide. now that it is in front of you we hope you take the opportunity to not pass the buck along again to [inaudible] we have 4 point we would like to present in terms of our appeals and are we ready to start with the first one? >> ya. my name is mohammed sheck with critical resisance and [inaudible] of curb. one of the points that we really wanted to highlight is the fact that this preliminary mitigated negative declaration is for a project that is not in accordance with state building regulations. we would like to show that here. in the prelim near neg tsk deckler aiz they state the project is a maex mm security facility compliant with codes and standards, however when you look that state regulations defined by [inaudible] section 1231 [inaudible] clearly states that outdoor exercise area or areas must be provided in type o

. >> i can't speak around the question of whether the board chooses to approve or disapprove the project, but i would reiterate that in the sequa determination we are working with a specific project as described and when we analyze the impacts we are analyzing the impacts of the whole of that project as described. even though we have heard there may in the end be fewer beds than what we analyzed, we analyzed the maximum size project that was brought before us and that is what the environmental document covers. i do believe that you will learn more about the project when the sponsor provides their presentation about things like the height and bulk and mass and the various provisions around the project, but our environmental analysis addresses the project as it was defined in the application filed with the planning department and that did remain stable through our analysis and covered under the analysis. >> okay. i will reserve question frz the sit a agency acting as the project sponsor. i still question when we have a stable project before us. it feels like a moving target and feels even stainge and premature to do a determinati

sequa that the childrens garden permit is considered a implementing action through the construction of the maus sconey expansion project. next steps include, a approval of the childrens garden by the oversight boardreview and approval which is required because the childrens garden is subject to transfer under ocii long range property management plan. since these slides were presented the oversite board meeting has been rescheduled to august 10 provide there'd there is quaurm that day. [inaudible] 5 days to request a review, if it doesn't request a review the oversight action is final in august. there is 45 day review period. dof indicated it doesn't plan to review the childrens garden permit. so in conclusion, staff recommends authorizing the childrens garden permit to enter with dpw, sf travel and web core and adopting environmental findings pursuant to sequa. now i would like to introduce [inaudible] with public works who will answer any questions on the project and also on the permit. >> my name is [inaudible] public works, project manager and here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. also here today is josh keen, he is representing the cities department of real estate mpt the c

sequa that the childrens garden permit is considered a implementing action through the construction of the maus sconey expansion project. next steps include, a approval of the childrens garden by the oversight board and department of finns review and approval which is required because the childrens garden is subject to transfer under ocii long range property management plan. since these slides were presented the oversite board meeting has been rescheduled to august 10 provide there'd there is quaurm that day. [inaudible] 5 days to request a review, if it doesn't request a review the oversight action is final in august. there is 45 day review period. dof indicated it doesn't plan to review the childrens garden permit. so in conclusion, staff recommends authorizing the childrens garden permit to enter with dpw, sf travel and web core and adopting environmental findings pursuant to sequa. now i would like to introduce [inaudible] with public works who will answer any questions on the project and also on the permit. >> my name is [inaudible] public works, project manager and here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. also here today is josh keen, he is representing the cities department

sequa that the childrens garden permit is considered a implementing action through the construction of the maus sconey expansion project. next steps include, a approval of the childrens garden by the oversight board and department of finns review and approval which is required because the childrens garden is subject to transfer under ocii long range property management plan. since these slides were presented the oversite board meeting has been rescheduled to august 10 provide there'd there is quaurm that day. [inaudible] 5 days to request a review, if it doesn't request a review the oversight action is final in august. there is 45 day review period. dof indicated it doesn't plan to review the childrens garden permit. so in conclusion, staff recommends authorizing the childrens garden permit to enter with dpw, sf travel and web core and adopting environmental findings pursuant to sequa. now i would like to introduce [inaudible] with public works who will answer any questions on the project and also on the permit. >> my name is [inaudible] public works, project manager and here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. also here today is josh keen, he is representing the cities department