I dont advise you name a particular subcontractor in your motion. You can say that there should be a qualified professional to oversee it. Thank you. That makes sense. Ok. So you want to reword that. Step up, please. Thank you, commissioner hyland. Just to followup on the Square Footage issue, what is in front of you is a certificate of appropriateness, its not locking in the area which were going to the Planning Commission to discuss next month. In your motion it does say 49,364 right now. Our request is currently for 49,999 and thats why we just requested to add the motion. I can accommodate all parties you can amend that language to reach up to 49,499. Thats the way to do it. Thats fine. We have a motion. Second. Could you expand on the qualified professional to review what to oversee the implementation of the architect actual treatments of the facade. Thats accepted by the maker of the motion . Yes. Oh, yeah. Thats fine. I was trying to find where it said the Square Footage. Just g
Statement overriding sequa findings and that was not unanimous. The omission of an analysis in sequa is an emission so the measure analysis is legal issue. Its 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
When weighed against the benefits of this project, namely the creation of muchneeded housing, and a more walkable streetscape, the mitigations were found to be sufficient by the planning commission. Furthermore, the appellant proposed alternatives that were similar to two alternatives studied in the eir. Packages of design changes to mitigate the Historic Resource were included in four preservation alternatives in the eir, which are not considerably different from the alternatives proposed by the amelants. Appel. 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 . Second
Leave unhappy today and im sorry for that. I cannot please everyone and can only do what i think is right for this Community Based on all of the needs that we need to take care of. And i want to thank those who weighed in without the vitriolic anger. We dont need that level of discussion talking about projects and housing and childcare. Thank you all for your feedback and for coming to Public Comment today. I also want to thank our departments, oewd forrering that youve done on Development Agreement. Theres many of you, so thank you. And our City Attorneys Office who has been helpful. Its a complex project. For those willing to work with them when i pushed back to achieve what i think is the best project for our community. And also, i want to thank my staff. This is an undertaking mainly daniel herstein, who has been great and helpful in this project, so thank you. Colleagues, i want to wrap up by saying i have worked hours, days and years on this project as a legislative aid and now a
I dont advise you name a particular subcontractor in your motion. You can say that there should be a qualified professional to oversee it. Thank you. That makes sense. Ok. So you want to reword that. Step up, please. Thank you, commissioner hyland. Just to followup on the Square Footage issue, what is in front of you is a certificate of appropriateness, its not locking in the area which were going to the Planning Commission to discuss next month. In your motion it does say 49,364 right now. Our request is currently for 49,999 and thats why we just requested to add the motion. I can accommodate all parties you can amend that language to reach up to 49,499. Thats the way to do it. Thats fine. We have a motion. Second. Could you expand on the qualified professional to review what to oversee the implementation of the architect actual treatments of the facade. Thats accepted by the maker of the motion . Yes. Oh, yeah. Thats fine. I was trying to find where it said the Square Footage. Just g