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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 doesnt recommend approval or disapproval. Further the appellate raised concerns about the potential relocation of 14 sro units and retail tenants in 480484, 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 havent 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 kims 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 Commissions determination on the Environmental Review before. Im 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 didnt require a full eir. By virtue of how large the project is, it seems logical we do a full Environmental Impact review. I dont 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. Im 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 wasnt 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 isnt 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 grafunding 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 isnt adequate today and did want want to uphold or affirm the neg deck ill 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 havent 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 didnt 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 wasnt 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. Im 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 didnt 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. Im 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 dont 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 dont have a lot of details of what that will be. Thank you for your response to that. I thinki do have one more question. If we do approve this determination today, what is the next step for an appellate . Whend they move to the the court directly since the body wont 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 . Iit is hard to know what that cost differential. I dont know all the cost involved in filing a lawsuit if the appellate isnt 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 couldnt 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. Im 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 dont 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. Ill 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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] isnt based on project size, it is based on whether a project has Significant Impacts that cant 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] well do a Environmental Impact review. Im 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 dont recall the detailoffs Booker T Washington. I do believeshe 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 wouldnt demolish it and there isnt a Significant Impact to a Historical Resource from this project. Im not sure i remember a Historical Resource issue in that eir, but it is stillthere are a number of things that distinguish a small building from getting a eir so if we find ways to mitigate it may be Historical Resources in play, are there any other factors that distinshuish between a neg deck and eir review . Really the line that is drawn in sequa is if there are significant unavoidable impact said. There is also a provision in sequa that specifically states that controversy surrounding a project is not in and of itself require a Environmental Impact report and there is also discussion about socio ecnocm impacks and states those are to be considered as they relate to physical Environmental Impacts. We have a thick book but those are some of the provisions where a negative declaration is concerned. The standard of review is whether a fair argument has been made or can be made that there is a significant unavoidable Environmental Impact from the project and sequa defines a fair argument as based on substantial evidence in the record of a physical impact. To go back to the stable description issue that i brought up the stability of the project description, maybe you can clarify this for me. I am looking at the county of [inaudible] versus city of los angeles case that stated interpreted the National Environmental policy act stating a accurate stable finite project description is a essential element of a legally sufficient eir under sequa. I know this isnt a eir but i come back to the question of how can we approve any type of environmental determination when all is no project before us. Usually we get a complete project and there is planning around height, density and bulk. We have this vague project before us they are approving after we finish this suposeedly. How can we have any type of a determination of a project this big . Even if the project is smaller i dont feel like the project is a stable or finite description of what we are building. I cant 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 determination when we dont know what the project will look like. I have never seen a design of the project. It still feels very premature to do project approval and the environmental determination. Thank you mrs. Jones. Thank you supervisor kim. At this time we will move to the city departments which include the Real Estate Department and public works for up to 10 minutes presentation. And just for clarity, weal enforce the 10 minutes rule so i see the Sheriffs Department is here as well so if we can move quickly through the presentation of each of those departments. Thank you. Madam president for point of information to the members of the public to remind them there is approved board rule which requires no audible [inaudible] use your silent fingers please. Thank you madam clerk. Good afternoon present breed and member thofz board. Chals [inaudible] with public works project management. We do not have a formal presentation to offer but i would thrike comment and offer a few remarks pertinent to what is gone before here. Regarding the project definition, for about a year now a little over a year we have investigating the alternatives among several for realizing a replacement facility to replace the deficient gale. Jail. We looked at 6 different scenarios and reduced them to 3 and the most recent presentation. 3 schemes that reflect locations in San Francisco and san bruno and san bruno alone. These studies are as a result many months of work by professional architects and engineers and cost estimators to bring forward the project description that was submitted for sequa consideration. I offer here to you an exert from our budget and finance presentation where we show 3 scenarios, 1, 2, and 3. Scenario 1 is the project being proposed for 384 beds. It is valued at 240 Million Dollars and is eligible for state funding of up to 80